Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WHITCHURCH BRIDGE BILL

HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]

LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Contract Cleaning

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the contract cleaning industry.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): I met representatives of the Contract Cleaning Maintenance Association on 9 November 1987.

Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Did he have the opportunity to discuss with the contract cleaners the amount of money saved as a result of competitive tendering in the north-west region and the impact of the savings on patient care? When existing contracts come up for renewal, will he ask regional health authorities to examine the different savings at different units to see what lessons can be learnt, in the interests of further savings and improvements in the quality of cleaning?

Mr. Moore: Yes, Sir. I discussed those issues with the CCMA, which drew my attention to the fact—my hon. Friend knows this—that about £9 million had been saved in the north-west region. I stress that about 85 per cent. of the contracts have been awarded in-house as a result of the excellent work of the NHS. The arrangements save money, which is put to good effect in patient care.

Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister allow health authorities to require performance bonds from those who contract? That system was withdrawn by his predecessor, and I hope that he will reintroduce it.

Mr. Moore: I shall be only too happy to consider anything that will ensure that quality work is done—whoever does it—under the tendering arrangements.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are baffled at the opposition to competitive tendering for cleaning and other services, given that it works so well in industry and other organisations and that it will obviously benefit patient care because more funds will go direct to the sharp end?

Mr. Moore: I have to share my hon. Friend's bafflement. I find it difficult to believe that anyone can disagree that any money saved by the more efficient delivery of health care is to the benefit of the Health Service and of patients, which is what the Health Service is all about.

Mr. Robin Cook: When the Secretary of State met the contractors, did he remind them of the squalor and filth to which many of them have reduced our hospitals? Did he read last month's article in the British Medical Journal, which concluded that with privatisation
Cheapness seems to have ousted quality"?
Did he read last week's report containing a survey of one hospital in which private contractors left uncleaned bloodstains for three weeks in the operating theatre? When he next meets the private contractors, will he tell them that he will give back to health authorities the right—without ministerial interference—to sack those cowboys who put their profits before the patients?

Mr. Moore: I saw the thoroughly misleading article from the Association of London Authorities, which, among other things, reported criticism of Westminster hospital from more than two years ago. The cause of that criticism has been corrected, as confirmed by a recent community health council visit to the hospital site. I would listen far more seriously to Opposition Members on this subject if one of them, at least, would join me in deploring the postponement in Scotland of 2,447 operations already because of the activities of the unions in relation to this issue.

Children and Women (NHS Services)

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the provision of children's and women's services by the National Health Service on Merseyside.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): A comprehensive range of services is provided by the 10 local health authorities within the Mersey region, and the local family practitioner committees. Among them, the Liverpool health authority has plans to reorganise its paediatric and adult acute services.

Mr. Alton: Before the Minister approves those proposals, will she weigh carefully the grave anxieties felt by many people in the Greater Liverpool area about the future of the women's hospital and the Myrtle street children's hospital? Does she accept that both those hospitals provide a much-needed community service? Is the Minister satisfied that cervical cancer screening is being undertaken satisfactorily on Merseyside?

Mrs. Currie: That sounds like about six different questions. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are at


different stages in the consultation process. The paediatric facilities have been referred for ministerial decision and I have agreed to meet the community health council to discuss them. Further consultation will take place later this year on services for women and other adults. The hon. Gentleman will know that we issued a new circular on the cervical smear system on 12 January which takes into account the findings in Liverpool.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while investment is taking place at Alderhey and other children's facilities, it would be unwise to over-invest, because Liverpool has a declining population and over-investment would be at the expense of growth areas elsewhere in the north-west?

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is right in his facts. Liverpool health authority now accounts for only 20 per cent. of the population of Mersey region, but over 25 per cent. of its resources, and that does not include any major psychiatric in-patient facilities. However, there are still a lot of children in Liverpool, and developments, particularly the £9 million being spent at Alderhey hospital, will improve their facilities.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware of the strong opposition to the proposed closures of the two maternity hospitals, the only specialist women's hospital and the children's hospital at Myrtle street in Liverpool, all of which are in my constituency? There is total opposition to their closure from the women of Liverpool and Merseyside, the Health Service trade unions, the community health councils and doctors and gynaecologists. Do the Government really worry about the level of health care for women and children in the inner city of Liverpool?

Mrs. Currie: Liverpool has about 10 major hospitals within a mile of the city centre, yet it has lost 300,000 people since I lived there, many to suburbs such as the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Some of them might prefer to have the services closer to home.

Disabled People (Discrimination)

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was his Department's expenditure in each of the last three years on education and publicity aimed at reducing discrimination against disabled people.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It is difficult to give the precise figures for which the hon. Gentleman askes. Considerable sums are spent promoting the integration of disabled people through practical measures and assistance to statutory and voluntary agencies.

Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he recall that the committee, set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), which reported as long ago as 1981, called for legislation to end discrimination against disabled people? When will the Government start listening to disabled people in their organisations and stop blocking the legislation that they require on this deeply important issue?

Mr. Scott: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is by no means unanimity of view about whether blanket legislation to prohibit discrimination against

disabled people would be a sensible move, and the Government prefer to take practical measures to improve access for and the independence of disabled people.

Mr. Wareing: As the Government still set their mind against legislation, that is overwhelmingly supported by all the organisations for disabled people in Britain — the Minister will not be able to mention one that is against — is it not the Government's responsibility to say precisely how much is spent on education and publicity to prevent discrimination against disabled people? Why on earth has that not been done, in view of the disgraceful way in which the Bill that I presented to the House on 18 November 1983 was voted down with the help of the Whips?
Mr. Scott: It is not possible to give the figures because the Government support a range of voluntary and statutory organisations which undertake publicity and educational campaigns to promote the interests of disabled people. It is not possible to assemble the totality of that support.

Elderly People

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the proportion of gross domestic product expended in the United Kingdom on support for elderly people.

Mr. Moore: In 1983, 9·6 per cent. of gross domestic product was spent on support for elderly people. This figure includes all forms of support for elderly people, except for health care.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend compare the effect on pensioners' incomes and savings of the high-spending, high-inflation policies pursued by the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 with the low-inflation, prudent policies pursued by this Government since 1979?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the reality, which is sometimes ignored by Opposition Members, that half pensioners' total net income in the United Kingdom does not come from the state basic pension. The level of inflation under the previous Labour Government was a contributory factor to the fact that the increase in the real net income of pensioners was only 0·6 per cent. a year, compared with 2·7 per cent. a year under this Government. [Interruption.] The comparison is, of course, one that the Opposition would like to shout down as the contrast is so startling, as are comparisons between the successful economic policies of this Government and the appalling inflation level that pensioners faced under the previous Government.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Haynes—and a happy birthday.

Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State will not have to bother when he is elderly. He is well-breeched. Government Ministers are all appearing on television and getting fat TV fees, but the elderly people in my constituency and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends really suffer under this Administration. Why do the Government not pull their fingers out and do something about it?

Mr. Moore: I know that the hon. Gentleman, who I regard as an old friend—[Interruption.]—will enjoy on


his birthday my friendship and my concern that, with his undoubted commitment to the interests of those in need, he will not share with me the distress that he must have suffered when Labour was last in office.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to that part of the private sector that provides residential homes for elderly people in Britain? Will he confirm that without that help the National Health Service would indeed be badly stretched to cope with these people?

Mr. Moore: The support and help for those in residential and nursing homes is a combined effort between the private and public sectors. If my memory serves me aright, about 120,000 old people are in residential homes run by local authorities, and about 100,000 are in private sector homes. We ought to commend all those who seek to give old people decent accommodation, whether public or private.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister tell us how many elderly people would recognise from his description the fact that the basic pension went up by 20 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government and by only 5 per cent. in real terms under the present Government, and that the improvements in general income to which he referred come directly from the new pension schemes introduced by that Government and halved by his Government? Does he recognise that the thrust of Government policy, with its reduction of rights, increased means, testing and direction towards charities, is particularly distressing to elderly people who have been there before?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Lady forgets, as the Opposition continue to do, that we should be interested in the real well-being of old people and not simply in which Government contribute to it. If, as a consequence, we analyse the real position of old people, it is clear that the Opposition should never have the temerity even to raise the issue in the House. The reality is that old people in Britain were cheated in every sense of the word when the Labour party was in office. Since we have been in office their incomes have improved in real terms and in comparison to the working population, while their incomes declined against the working population while the Labour party was in office.

Pensions

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice his Department intends to give to members of occupational pension schemes before 1 April.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Social Security Act 1986 will open up new opportunities for employees to take out personal pensions and for employers to set up new sorts of pension schemes. These choices are explained in leaflets and will be advertised on television and in the press later in the year, but it is not for the Government to offer pensions advice to individual scheme members.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. The changes in choices in pension provision are to be welcomed and should ensure that future generations of

elderly people will benefit considerably from the new choice. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern among trustees and managers of pensions funds that if members of occupational schemes opt out of them they may inadvertently lose entitlement to important fringe benefits, such as death-in-service cover and widows' pensions? When publicising the Government's plans, will he take every opportunity to warn the public of those dangers?

Mr. Portillo: I recognise my hon. Friend's expertise in this matter. The Financial Services Act 1986 contains conduct of business rules that require suppliers to give the best advice to their potential customers. That will include discovering the client's present position and whether the client has an occupational pension. If the client has such a pension, the supplier should advise him or her about what benefits might be lost from the occupational pension and what benefits may be gained. As a spin-off from our reforms, occupational pension scheme suppliers will have to explain the benefits more carefully to members.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the spin-off from the so-called reforms, which are really highly regressive, an increased cost on local authorities such as the West Yorkshire fire authority? That authority has made representations to me, claiming that the costs of posing alternative, inferior schemes to the present fire authority scheme are not provided for by the Home Office. That means an extra cost on a fire authority that is desperate to maintain the standards imposed by the Home Office. In some areas it cannot meet the Home Office requirements. Will the Minister get together with the Home Office and ensure that all costs imposed by the Government's rotten schemes are provided for?

Mr. Portillo: I should be happy to explore that point, but I do not recognise it. I believe that the reforms provide a much wider range of pensions choice, which will offer people opportunities in future without shackling them to a particular employer.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the flow of funds into public sector provision for retirement is on an altogether much more generous scale than for the bulk of people in the private sector? Will he take steps to encourage employers to put far more funds into the provision of retirement benefit for employees in the private sector so that the vast bulk of our population are freed from the risk that they may be obliged to go through the humiliation in retirement of applying for means-tested benefit?

Mr. Portillo: One of the effects of our reforms is that they will raise the public's consciousness and awareness about pensions choices. That will oblige occupational pension scheme suppliers to explain the benefits more carefully to their members. It will probably encourage members to be more demanding of their occupational pension schemes.

South East Thames RHA (Chairman)

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to replace the chairman of the South East Thames regional health authority.

Mrs. Currie: No, Sir.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that South East Thames regional health authority is the only authority that


does not provide teaching funds to its district hospitals? Is she further aware that Medway health authority was promised such funds this year? Does she agree that the failure to honour that promise is a further example of the feeble subservience to the great London teaching hospitals which pays no regard to the shift in population or to the improvement in communications in the south-east?

Mrs. Currie: I am sure that the regional health authority has taken note of my hon. Friend's views. Medway health authority is now teaching undergraduates, and is doing that very well. I know that the region wants to make an allocation to the authority, but it is waiting until we have finished our review of the RAWP formula, which includes an analysis and recalculation of the service increment for teaching. However, apart from anything else, my hon. Friend should be aware that the region has allocated £60 million to the health authority, and that is a substantial increase on recent years.

Mr. Fraser: Is it the Government's policy to concentrate health authorities in inner-city areas?

Mrs. Currie: I must confess that I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means. Our policy is to have 190 health authorities all over the country, to allocate them the resources that they need and to ask them to produce the best services possible.

Miss Widdecombe: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is deep discontent in South East Thames region in general, and in my constituency of Maidstone in particular, on the part of the district health authority and the consultants and nurses, over the distribution of the South East Thames money that is so generously provided by the Government? Will she note that the chairman was seriously ill for a long time, so the ills of the South East Thames region cannot be laid fairly and squarely only on the chairman? There is something indelibly wrong with the way in which the authority runs itself, and I ask her to look closely at the matter.

Mrs. Currie: Despite the strictures of my hon. Friend, I am pleased to note that there has been a rapid increase in the number of patients being treated by Maidstone district. She might be interested to know that Mr. Peter le Fleming, who is the regional manager and who has given many years of outstanding service to the Health Service, will be retiring later this year. I understand that the RHA is announcing today the appointment of Mr. Peter Griffiths, the district general manager of Lewisham and North Southwark district, who was previously district administrator in Medway, to the post. I hope that my hon. Friend will enjoy working with him in future.

Ms. Harman: Is the Minister aware that the South-East Thames regional advisory committee has said that there has been a
serious deterioration in the quality of care
because of cuts in general surgery, and that
it is not unusual for breast cancer surgery to be cancelled four or five times.
Does the hon. Lady still say that bed closures reflect an improvement in patient care, when the BMA's document, published yesterday, states that 50 per cent. of the acute beds that have been lost in hospitals in the South-East Thames region were lost for financial reasons?

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady may be too young to realise that beds have been lost ever since the Health Service was

established. [Interruption.] What matters far more, as I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, is that every bed used, every penny spent, and every member of staff employed in the Health Service should produce the highest standards of health. We are impressed with the progress that has been made in that area.

Eye Treatment

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make funds available to reduce the waiting list for eye treatment in the Southport-Formby area.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): We are making an additional £90,000 available from the waiting list fund in 1987–88 and 1988–89 to reduce waiting times for eye treatment in Southport and Formby. Part will be used to train a registrar in Southport to carry out intra-ocular lens surgery. The rest will be allocated to neighbouring South Sefton health authority, which has contracted to treat 200 additional ophthalmology patients from the Southport and Formby list.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that the current waiting list is 700 in the Southport and Formby health authority? Does he know that 37 other hospitals are waiting for lasers? Will there be any more funds for laser machines?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Southport now has a new Argon laser, which is speeding up treatment by changing the emphasis from in-patient care to day treatment. He will also know that a number of other initiatives have been taken by the authority to make inroads into this problem, some with Government help. This year a large new district general hospital is about to open in that health authority. It includes a purpose-built ophthmalogy unit, which will help further.

Mr. Favell: is not one of the great successes of the Government the increase in the number of patients receiving eye treatment? Are not people of 80 and 90 years of age, who would never have dreamt of seeing a consultant 15 or 20 years ago, now receiving treatment?

Mr. Newton: Yes, that is true. We are anxious that still more should be done, and I have outlined some of the ways in which more is being done.

Ms. Walley: If the Minister is so concerned about reducing waiting lists, what action will he take to deal with the 2,500 people who are waiting for orthopaedic operations in the North Staffordshire district health authority—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about eye treatment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is an eye-opener.

Ms. Walley: That is exactly right. It is an eye-opener about waiting lists. People are having to wait a long time for hip operations. We in North Staffordshire want sufficient resources for eye treatment and for hip replacement operations.

Mr. Newton: Whether the hon. Lady is primarily interested in orthopaedics—that is hips—or in eyes, I assure her that our efforts to reduce waiting lists will


continue. Shortly, we shall he announcing the distribution of a further £30 million that will be available for that purpose next year.

Disabled People

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to monitor the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

Mr. Scott: The Social Services Inspectorate is exploring ways of monitoring the effects of the Act. It has close links with the services concerned, and its role involves promoting efficient and effective use of resources, identifying good practice and making it known.

Mrs. Fyfe: That is not much of an answer. Can the Minister explain the delay of nearly two years in the implementation of section 3 of the 1986 Act, especially bearing in mind that section's potential to enable disabled people to make their own voices heard as consumers of these services?

Mr. Scott: The Government have made it clear that they want to proceed steadily with the implementation of the Act. In advance of implementing each section we have detailed consultations with bodies representing local authorities. We want to make sure that the resources are available to ensure the effective implementation of each section.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister satisfied with his Department's attitude to disabled persons, especially with regard to the employment quota? I have the February 1988 figures, and the DHSS employs only 1·3 per cent. of disabled persons, which is well below the accepted and recommended 3 per cent. quota. The Government's attitude to the disabled is a scandal. The Minister's Department cannot get its disabled employment quota up to 3 per cent. and, similarly, not one Government Department employs the 3 per cent. quota of disabled persons.

Mr. Scott: I take seriously the responsibility for promoting the employment of disabled people. This Government introduced the fit for work campaign and the code of good practice for the employment of disabled people. However, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

Pensions

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the feasibility and utility of comparing the value of basic state pensions between different European social security and national insurance systems; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moore: The best available comparative measure is the share of gross domestic product devoted to all programmes for elderly people. By that measure the United Kingdom's spending is the third highest in Europe. The United Kingdom basic pension cannot usefully be compared with pensions in other European Community countries, which have very different systems of support for elderly people.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is it not the case that the figures peddled by the Leader of the Opposition and his friends

in Strasbourg are grossly misleading and bogus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is it not the case that the pension figures are a cruel confidence trick?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The EC report on old-age pensions is worthless as a guide to pensioners' living standards in the United Kingdom because it does not take into account occupational pensions, except for those on twice average earnings. When such pensions are included, the United Kingdom is second in the Community with regard to the level of replacement of earnings by pension. Also, the report does not take into account other benefits to pensioners that alter the picture dramatically. When they are included in the total figure, the United Kingdom is third in the list.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not clear that, although the Government are boasting about their booming economy within the Common Market, when comparing basic state pensions one finds that nearly every other EC state pays better state pensions than the United Kingdom Government? Is it not the fact that the Government do not want such comparisons made because they expose the rotten deal that they give to state pensioners?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is, not unusually, utterly wrong. Only three EC countries—the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland — pay flat-rate pensions. If one considers the other countries where earnings-related pensions are based on individuals' own average earnings, those pensions do not represent a national average. Therefore, it is clear that low earnings—I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have some interest in this matter—produce extremely low pensions.

Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when comparing state pensions we need to look at the other benefits that pensioners receive in the form of free tranport, housing benefit and so on? If one sought to compare the value of an Irish state pension with an English one it benefits an Irish man only if he buys his beer in this country.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend draws attention to the point that I sought to make that, when one takes the total percentage of GDP given by our country to help the elderly, we are third highest in the European league.

Home Care

Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the social services departments which provide a seven-days-a-week home care service.

Mr. Newton: I regret that the information about this local authority service for England is not available centrally. Home help staff increased by an estimated 20 per cent. between 1978 and 1986.

Mr. McLeish: Unfortunately, my question has not been answered. Does the Minister believe that seven-day home care is the most effective way of keeping the severely disabled and the elderly frail in the community? If so, does he accept that local authorities need more resources to implement such a programme, and will he encourage them to do so, instead of answering as he has done today and giving the wrong information for the right question?

Mr. Newton: I wish to continue to give local authorities, whether in England or Scotland, the general encouragement that the hon. Gentleman seeks. A recent report by the Social Services Inspectorate showed that local authorities are developing old-style home help services into a more modern home care service, which is a sensible development.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Further to the most important topic of seven-days-a-week care, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see early-day motion 787, and will he join colleagues on this side of the House in congratulating the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who recently opened a private nursing home in her constituency? Does that mark a—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like a business question.

Mr. Newton: I always welcome signs of conversion to common sense.

Disabled Persons Act

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his estimates of the additional number of social workers required for the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

Mr. Scott: It is for individual local authorities to decide how best to discharge their statutory responsibilities and how many social workers or other staff are needed. Before any section of the disabled persons Act is implemented, the Government discuss with local authorities the overall costs entailed.

Mr. Ross: Why is the Minister so apathetic in the face of the growing concern about the adequacy of the implementation of care in the community for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people? When will he implement section 7 of the Act?

Mr. Scott: Implementation of section 7 of the Act is under discussion at the moment.

Mr. Wigley: Surely the Minister cannot get away with the two answers that he has just given concerning the Act. Two years have gone by since the Act was passed and the Government are still discussing and prevaricating. At a time when there is £2,000 million to give away in the Budget, surely the Government can afford one sixth of a penny income tax to help disabled people in such need?

Mr. Scott: It was made clear, when the Act became law, that it would not be implemented at once, but would be steadily implemented, and we are making good progress in that direction.

Mr. Rowe: As one of the sponsors of the measure, I should like to welcome the fact that we are making progress. However, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully the fact that, when disabled people receive an adequate degree of support, they are frequently no longer a burden on the social services, because they are able to earn? That is one of the most important features of the Act.

Mr. Scott: It is one of the most important features of the Act, and one of the main thrusts of Government policy, to enable an increasing number of disabled people to have access to employment and education.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not fully implement the Act because they will be embarrassed by the amount of unmet need that will be revealed by implementation? Will he recognise that the Government's failure to implement the Act is damaging to disabled school leavers, to young people leaving hospital and to those who care for disabled people? Why does he not implement the Act?

Mr. Scott: We remain committed to the phased implementation of the legislation. That always was the Government's intention and we intend to continue the steady progress in that direction.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, despite his reassuring tones, there is grave concern about the Government's clear failure to implement sections of the Act which deal with such matters as advocacy, the scandal of people being discharged from long-stay hospitals and other vital matters concerning the disabled? Many people in local government will take exception to the Minister's implied suggestion most of this afternoon that local authorities are responsible for the delay. Just as the Government refused to listen to local authorities about the Social Security Act 1986, which takes away from disabled persons, they are failing to take on board the strong views of local authorities that it is imperative for the Government to implement fully the decision of the House in terms of this Act.

Mr. Scott: It is worth reminding the House that by the production of extra resources to help disabled people and by the actions that the Government have taken, in a statutory sense, to provide access to employment, transport, the countryside and elsewhere, the Government have shown their commitment to disabled people. The Act set out the framework for progress, but detailed discussions need to take place about the implementation of individual sections of the Act, and we are engaged in that.

Hospital Alert

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the organisation Hospital Alert over the last three months on the question of the National Health Service.

Mrs. Currie: I believe that a petition was presented to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that Hospital Alert represents the authentic voice of men and women throughout the country? [Interruption.] Not the Labour party — Hospital Alert represents everyone, irrespective of political persuasion. How does the Minister respond to the millions of Conservative supporters throughout the country who do not want substantial tax reductions next week? They want part of the money that is available to the Treasury to be spent on developing the National Health Service. How does the Minister respond to those Conservative supporters?

Mrs. Currie: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I understand that Hospital Alert is supported financially by the London borough of Hounslow, which, despite being rate-capped this year, managed to find money to give to that campaign. However, we take such


campaigns seriously. My PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), booked the Grand Committee Room to meet those people in a lobby recently, and 17 people turned up. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the Budget, we shall have to wait until next week.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When considering Hospital Alert, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that a great delegation from my constituency on the matter of Hospital Alert consisted of two constituents, and that the delegation to our hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) consisted of one petitioner?

Mrs. Currie: Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend is aware, we take seriously all the points made by his constituents and by the constituents of all other hon. Members. We are putting a great deal more money into the Health Service and are employing a record number of nurses this year. We hope that we will be able to pay them better when the review body has reported.

Mr. Robin Cook: Among the representations on the NHS, has the Under-Secretary of State seen the letter from Dr. Mitchell of Scarborough hospital, which scores highest on her Department's performance indicators? Has she noted the conclusions of all the consultants at that hospital, that the rate at which they are expected to discharge patients was "positively dangerous", and Dr. Mitchell's observation:
it is easy to appear efficient if one is underfunded and understaffed"?
Does not that letter from the hospital which, by her own standards, is the most efficient, demonstrate why we want more funds for the NHS before more tax cuts for the wealthy?

Mrs. Currie: I have certainly seen the letter in the press. I know that the doctor sent it to the press. We take all such representations seriously. However, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the hospital service is not the entire Health Service and that, with the support of many Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), we are moving to reform the primary care services as well. In that way we think that we can relieve the pressures on the hospitals.

Central Birmingham Health Authority

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take about the performance of Central Birmingham district health authority as disclosed by the CIPFA database's latest performance comparisons.

Mr. Newton: The CIPFA information relates to 1984 and 1985 and to a very limited number of indicators. Performance indicator information for 1985 shows that the district performed well on throughput and turnover after standardisation for its complex case mix, and the district is broadly in the range of costs of other teaching districts. But the indicators and trends suggest areas for inquiry, and I welcome the fact that the West Midlands regional health authority and Central Birmingham health authority are together monitoring the data on services and costs in the district to ensure that they are being provided as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the constant consultant clamour that has come from the

district health authority, which has done so much to undermine the public confidence in the National Health Service. The figures he has given show that the health authority comes 19th out of 23 district health authorities on throughput in beds, and 21st out of 23 on patient attendance, yet it receives more money per head of population than any other district health authority in the west midlands.

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that those questions must be considered in relation to the health authority, so I very much welcome the work of the regional chairman in discussing these matters with the district.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reconsider her policies on wider share ownership? Research shows that 17 per cent. of Labour party members now own shares. Will she ensure that other sections of the population are able to enjoy that great privilege?

The Prime Minister: Our policy has been, and remains, a capital-owning democracy, including both the ownership of houses and the ever wider ownership of shares by all sections of the population. Further privatisation will assist in that process. It is a very successful policy and is partly responsible for seeing that the party that believes in a capital-owning democracy is returned to power.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will know that we have a record trade deficit and that our balance of payments continues to deteriorate. In those circumstances, is she content to see the pound continue to rise against the deutschmark and the dollar?

The Prime Minister: The only way to deal with that is either to have excessive intervention, which would lead to inflation—and it is not part of our policy to assist inflation; rather, it is part of our policy to get inflation down—or to deal with the matter by interest rates, which would not be in the interests of inflation at the present time.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister saying that it does not matter, in her view, how high the pound goes?

The Prime Minister: I am saying that getting and keeping inflation down is the most important thing of all. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we believe that last month's trade figures were a freak. Indeed, at the same time as last month's figures were announced, a reduction was announced in the deficit of the December figures and in the current account deficit for 1987.

Mr. Kinnock: When we have the highest real interest rates in the industrialised world, when we have that balance of trade deficit, when the balance of payments is continuing to deteriorate, when we have the lowest ever


level of personal savings and when we have the highest ever level of personal debt, how long does the Prime Minister think that that condition can continue?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that the balance of payments deficit is very small compared with those of a Labour Government. Last year it was £2·5 billion, which is precisely what the Chancellor forecast in the Budget. He was the one forecaster who was spot on.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend explain why, when we are spending more money than ever before on the National Health Service, there are so many complaints? Will she reiterate that the National Health Service is safe in her hands, and can she recollect any time when Budget day was National Health Service day under any Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I recall very well that the Labour party Budget days and the control and management of its economic policy led to slashing hospital capital expenditure and cuts in the pay of doctors and nurses.

Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister condemn the attack on the Panamanian consulate in London last night, and will she make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will not recognise General Noriega as Head of State?

The Prime Minister: There was an attack, and this morning my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary called the ambassador into the Foreign Office to make it perfectly clear that differences of opinion must not be fought out on London streets.

Mr. McCrindle: Still on the subject of expenditure within the National Health Service, will my right hon. Friend try to find time today to reflect on the fact that, by targeting a relatively small amount of money on the reduction of waiting lists, there has been very considerable success over the past year in reducing them? Will she give further thought to whether the investment of a relatively small additional amount targeted directly on the acute services might very well bear disproportionate benefits?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of what my hon. Friend says. That money, instead of going generally to the improvement of the Health Service, was targeted specifically to get waiting lists down, and this has been very successful. We shall learn the lessons from that method of dealing with increased expenditure.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Ewing: Could the Prime Minister, as a mother and a mother-in-law, spare a thought today for the women in my constituency and other parts of Grampian region? Is she aware that the local health board is proposing to close no fewer than six local maternity units, which means that women in my area and other parts of the region will have to travel 60 to 70 miles whilst in labour to the Aberdeen maternity hospital? [Interruption.] As I am sure that this is not the standard that the right hon. Lady would wish for her family, what assurance will she give the women of my area that they will not have a reduction in their standard of care?

The Prime Minister: I know of the hon. Lady's concern, and she was kind and courteous enough to give me notice of her supplementary question. As the hon. Lady knows, there has been a recent review of maternity beds in the Grampian health board area, which has revealed problems there, including the widespread under-use of facilities in the outlying and smaller units; hence the proposal to close some of them. [Interruption.] The board has issued a consultative document and asked for comments from all interested parties. The board will consider its proposals again in the light of representations that it receives before reaching a final decision. Any proposals for closure would, of course, require the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will obviously carefully consider the representations which the hon. Lady and her constituents have made.

Mr. Stokes: Going further afield, does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom has every right to hold a military exercise in the Falklands Islands and that the South American countries have no grounds whatever for complaint?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We have not merely every right to hold such an exercise in the Falklands Islands, but a duty to see that reinforcement proposals could in fact be carried out, otherwise we should have to keep more of our armed forces down there. It is no one else's business, but is a matter of the defence of the people's rights in the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hardy: Three or four years and many inexactitudes ago the Prime Minister rejected the request that particular attention be given to the Dearne valley area. Is she aware that we have now had a substantial number of colliery closures: Cortonwood, Wath, Highgate, Kilnhurst, Cadeby, Yorkshire Main and others; that Manvers now faces extinction; that we have lost many jobs in supporting industries in steel; and that Guinness and United Glass now propose a disreputable and deceitful closure of the glass works at Swinton, with the loss of 500 jobs? Is it not time that the right hon. Lady began to recognise that the horrid position that we face suggests that the Government should understand that they have a responsibility to the whole nation and not merely to a few favoured areas, of which the Dearne Valley certainly is not a part?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that throughout the last year, and, indeed, for about 18 months now, unemployment has been falling — [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]. Unemployment has been falling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]. It has in fact been falling in all regions of the United Kingdom during the past few months.

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend seen that, following the reports last week that Haringey council was funding a bookshop selling anarchist literature to five-year-olds—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is in order.

Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend noted the more recent report that infant teachers in Haringey are somehow using Home Office funds to produce videos promoting homosexuality, and terrorism in South Africa? Does my right hon. Friend feel that that is a right and proper use of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, and can she do anything about it?

The Prime Minister: The first matter was raised in the House last week. As for the second, concerning the use of Home Office grant, section 11 grant is to help children from the ethnic minority communities in Haringey to achieve their full educational potential. The Home Office is investigating the allegation that the grant has been used for other purposes, and, if that is found to be the case, grant may be withdrawn. The Department of Education and Science is also looking into the possibility that Haringey may have contravened its statutory duties to forbid the promotion of partisan political views and to ensure that political issues are presented in a balanced way.
The requisite Departments are looking into the matters raised in both parts of my hon. Friend's question, with a view to taking action.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister take time in her busy day to reconsider the statement that she made to the House last year about Sir Maurice Oldfield? Will she consider the inconsistency of the withdrawal of his positive vetting while no action was taken against Mr. Peter England, a deputy secretary in the Northern Ireland Office, and Mr. J. L. Imrie, an assistant secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, following investigations into the buggery of young children at the Kincora boys' home? Is she not disturbed that Mr. Imrie has taken no action against the newspaper that named him and his activities four weeks ago, although he continues to work for the Government in the Ministry of Defence? Can she assure the House that she is convinced of Mr. Imrie's innocence?
If not, will she now finally concede a genuinely independent inquiry into what went on in the homes in Kincora, irrespective of the damage that that may do to MI5 when its role is exposed?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the statement that I made on Sir Maurice Oldfield in the House. I note that the hon. Gentleman uses the privileges of the House to name people who are unable to answer back.

Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate all those who played a part in foiling what would have been a dastardly terrorist attack in Gibraltar by the IRA? Does she reject the criticism that is already beginning to creep in? Furthermore, does she agree that this shows the importance of maintaining the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important to retain the Prevention of Terrorism Act. As for what happened in Gibraltar, most of us are very relieved that there was no repeat of the bombing of the Green Jackets, the Horse Guards or Enniskillen, or of the Harrods bombing at Christmas time. We are very relieved that these events did not end in that kind of tragedy.

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday, 8 March 1988.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Prime Minister accept that in the course of a lifetime a person might want to change his or her job? Indeed, we sometimes wish that she would. There might be a variety of reasons why a person finds his or her job intolerable; for example, a young woman being sexually harassed. In the present climate it might be difficult for that person to find another job quickly. As such people have paid their taxes and national insurance, why is the right hon. Lady denying them unemployment benefit for six months? Is that not tantamount to the direction of labour, and why is she being so vindictive and callous to those people?

The Prime Minister: Title to unemployment benefit in general goes through the House and becomes a statute. In any particular case there is a right of appeal to the independent statutory authorities and not to a politician.

Clyde Ferry Services (Industrial Dispute)

Mr. Brian Wilson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the continuing industrial dispute that has halted ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne on the River Clyde.
Several thousand people who live in the island communities that are affected by this dispute are now facing severe difficulties as a result—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members kindly leave the Chamber quietly, please?

Mr. Wilson: Agricultural and feeding stocks are almost running out; some consumer goods are becoming increasingly short in supply; passengers in both directions are stranded; and the Easter tourist trade is threatened. We have had the extraordinary intervention of the Royal Navy on a strike-breaking foray, which is unlikely to encourage an early settlement. Islanders are offended—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) must be listened to in silence.

Mr. Wilson: Islanders are offended by the intransigence that has been shown by the Scottish Transport Group management, are suspicous of the political motivation that might be behind management's hard line and are sympathetic to the seamen who serve these communities well and who now face substantial cuts in earnings along with the imposition of anti-social rosters.
I pay tribute to the efforts of ACAS to bring the parties together. In the light of the Scottish Office's abdication of concern on other fronts, it is perhaps pious to hope that it should care tuppence for the problems being faced by beleaguered islanders. But Caledonian MacBrayne is a state-owned company that is under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. A debate on the Floor of the House could help to bring the issue to a speedy conclusion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the industrial dispute involving ferry services on the River Clyde.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that the matter that he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope that he will find other means of bringing it before the House.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the six motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) (Application to non-UK Ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Enclosed Superstructures and in Bulkheads above the Bulkhead Deck) (Application to Non-United Kingdom ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security (Payments on account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Amendment Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. — [Mr. Lightbow.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply to the consideration of Estimates as if paragraph (2) of that Order were omitted.—Mr. Wakeham.

Scottish Constitution (Referendum)

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum in Scotland to establish the level of demand for constitutional change.
In seeking the leave of the House to introduce the Bill, my key aim is to enable the people of Scotland to express freely and democratically what changes, if any, they seek in the way that they are governed. At the 1987 general election—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly to carry on private conversations.

Mrs. Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the 1987 general election, 76 per cent. of the voting public in Scotland supported and campaigned for parties with policies that argued for the return of decision making to the Parliament that was closed in 1707. Yet from the Treasury Benches we are continually told that there is no demand within Scotland for constitutional change. One would have thought that 76 per cent. of support for decentralising would have been seen as a demand for change, yet the Government refuse to recognise this as evidence of Scotland's aspirations. Additionally, in every opinion poll conducted on the subject of Scotland's constitutional future, more than 70 per cent. of those asked have indicated their desire to see democratic accountability and decision making returned to Scotland, yet the Government refuse to recognise this as evidence of Scotland's aspirations.
In the debates on Scotland's constitution that have been held in the House since the general election, the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have consistently voted for the decentralisation of power, yet the Government refuse to accept this as evidence of Scotland's aspirations. We therefore see our efforts to respond to democratic demands for change thwarted by a Government who turn their back on the evidence.
What, then, can those of us who seek to establish through democratic means the rights and responsibilities of self-determination do to persuade the Government and the House of the legitimacy of our demands? It is my contention that one way forward is to take the issue back to where it belongs, to the people of Scotland. The Bill, through enabling an objective referendum to be held, will most surely present the Government with irrefutable evidence of the people's views, unfettered by the many issues on which we campaigned at the general election. The arguments could be presented clearly for the various options that are open to us.
For that reason, I propose that the referendum should contain four options. First, there is the status quo, which

is favoured by most Conservative Members. Secondly, there is devolution, which is proposed by the Labour party. Thirdly, there is federalism, as proposed by the Liberal party. Fourthly, there is independence, as proposed by the Scottish National party. Each political party therefore could campaign for its particular standpoint. As the referendum is advisory, its major impact would be to present the Government with clear evidence of the Scottish viewpoint.
I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member will oppose the motion. Very basic democratic rights underpin the Bill. Enshrined in international law is a right of all nations for self-determination. No one can deny that Scotland is a nation; indeed, she is one of the oldest European nations, and until 1707 she governed herself. She still maintains many of the trappings of statehood, such as a separate legal system and a different education system. What she lacks is statehood, and that can only be achieved only through self-determination.
Over the weekend we heard the Prime Minister talking about self-determination as it affected the people of the Malvinas. Why, then, should the people of Scotland be denied the same basic principle?
The Bill affords the opportunity to the people of Scotland to exercise the principle of one man, one vote. Surely that very foundation of democracy cannot be denied by the House? We have a responsibility to ensure that genuine political opinions are not stultified, but are afforded a means of expression through the ballot box, in fair and free elections.
The Bill allows for all the options currently proposed in Scotland to be presented to the people. There can be no ideological reason for opposing it. Therefore, the only logical explanation that one could have for opposing my modest proposal is that people would fear the result of the referendum. Surely, as we say in Scotland, being feart is not a good enough reason.
I commend the Bill to the House, and I trust that it will have full support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Eric Heffer, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Alex Salmond, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

SCOTTISH CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM)

Mrs. Margaret Ewing accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum in Scotland to establish the level of demand for constitutional change: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

Question of Privilege

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to call attention to the parliamentary sketch in The Guardian of 2 March, and beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Members of Parliament are not noted for being shy and retiring creatures. Obviously, in the clash of ideologies which we have in the Chamber there are bound at the very least to be robust exchanges of view. Much heat is often generated, and strong and sometimes unkind words are used. No one should complain and, indeed, no one on either side complains about that.
By nature I am not a whinger. I am prepared to hand it out and to accept it, but there are clear limits. I maintain that the article by Mr. Andrew Rawnsley in The Guardian of 2 March grossly exceeded those limits. It was gratuitously offensive to named Members and it slandered most other hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Rawnsley's complaint was that in the debate on unemployment benefit changes on 1 March there were only a handful of Labour Members in the Chamber. He failed to notice that there were even fewer Tory Members present, but we shall let that pass for the moment. I understand that Mr. Rawnsley is a new and inexperienced sketch writer, but that is no excuse for not understanding the nature of parliamentary business, or for not attempting to find out how it is organised.
I confess that I am rather saddened that it is a journalist of The Guardian whom I am seeking to refer to the Committee of Privileges. The Guardian is one of the few national newspapers which we could describe as a quality newspaper with certain standards. I would have infinitely preferred that it had been The Sun that we were discussing, but since that newspaper has no standards it would have been impossible for it to have fallen from them.
At the time that Mr. Rawnsley was penning his offensive remarks, no fewer than nine Standing Committees were in session involving 74 Labour Members, plus a greater number of Conservative Members. In addition, a further 27 Labour Members were in Select Committees. There was also that day a major education lobby in which 2,000 people from all over the country participated, and obviously Members of Parliament would have been meeting their constituents.
For my part, I attended the education lobby and then went directly to the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill, which did not adjourn until 12.45 the following morning. In the Division on the unemployment benefit motion at 10 pm, about 90 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party voted, a fact unlikely to have been observed by a sketch writer who no doubt was safely tucked up in bed, as any Guardian journalist would be during opening time. In conjunction with my hon. Friends, I would have much liked to have been in the Chamber to participate in the debate on the unemployment benefit changes, but I could not, for the reasons already stated.
In all the circumstances, on the day in question it was an insult for Mr. Rawnsley to state that "drink, laziness and incompetence" were the reasons for the absence of hon. Members from the Chamber. For Mr. Rawnsley, when he realised how foolish he had been, subsequently to have written that it was all meant to be light-hearted,

merely added insult to injury. I wish to tell Mr. Rawnsley and any other journalist that the best kind of humour is that based on truth. There is nothing very funny about common abuse based on an imperfect understanding of the truth.
The House would be foolish to become over-sensitive to criticism, but fair criticism is as far from vulgar abuse as I thought the journalistic standards of The Guardian were from those of certain other newspapers. If the reputation of Parliament is to be maintained, there are times when our procedures must be defended in the face of ill-informed and malign attacks made upon us by journalists or anyone else. I do not seek to be vindictive towards a particular journalist and I am not interested in this House having privileges that are not justified by the duties and responsibilities placed upon us by the electorate. However, journalists should not be allowed irresponsibly and unjustifiably to attack MPs—or any of our citizens.
In view of what I believe to have been a gross contempt of this House by a newspaper journalist from The Guardian, I ask the House to accept the motion and to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for further consideration.

Mr. Ian Gow: I am not one of those who read The Guardian out of choice. It is true to say that before this I had never heard of Andrew Rawnsley, and it is only fair to add that I am sure that he has never heard of me. The article in question was totally unknown to me until the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was kind enough to hand it to me when he and I were both absent from the Chamber in the Public Accounts Committee a week ago today.
However, I note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) had occasion to address the House on 19 June 1984 when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) sought leave to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges. The hon. Gentleman opposed the motion moved by my hon. Friend, and this is what he said on that occasion:
I believe that this motion represents an unpardonable waste of parliamentary time.
He went on:
All Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, must accept the consequences of their actions and not whinge afterwards."—[Official Report, 19 June 1984;Vol. 62, c. 160–61.]
Let us examine the allegations made, mercifully, not against my hon. Friends but against Opposition Members:
Labour MPs appear to be slowly vanishing from the Chamber—

Mr. Robin Corbett: I am just going myself.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has underlined the truth of what was said by the sketch writer.
The question is then posed:
Where are they? … The latest theory is the oldest. At work, once again, is the Westminster Triangle: drink, laziness and incompetence.
I have no wish to forfeit the methodist vote in my constituency but I have to confess that during my short period in the House—and, indeed, before I arrived here—I have had more than one glass of white lady. I have given up drink for Lent, but let us examine the nature of the allegation and the Labour party's response to it. There are sins graver than to have a drink.

Mr. John McAllion: Being a Tory.

Mr. Gow: Laziness is a vice that has afflicted parliamentary sketch writers and Members of Parliament down the ages. To object to the charge of incompetence that was levelled at the Labour party is an objection with no foundation whatever.
Therefore, I conclude that the article, which was described as a sketch, has provoked the most unworthy response, notably from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. He is the custodian and trustee of some of the silver that used to be the property of the Greater London council. Whether it was incompetence that led him into the role of trustee, whether it is laziness that has prevented him from giving it back, or whether, at the moment of taking it or at the moment of putting it where it now is, he was under the influence of drink are matters which should not detain the House any further. I for one will be voting against the motion.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) omitted one important fact in moving his motion, and that is that the newspaper has apologised, not once but twice. Although I found the article offensive, that should be the end of the matter and the Committee of Privileges should not waste its time on it.

Mr. Eric Forth: I regret the terms of the motion because, in the words of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), it shows a degree of over-sensitivity that does the House and hon. Members little justice. If we are to resort to this device every time we felt sensitive about something writen by the press, the Committee of Privileges would be in constant session. There is nothing to be gained in pursuing this matter.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has just mentioned the fact that the journalist involved apologised twice for what had been said and that leads me to reflect on the fact that in the past few days the conduct of an hon. Member was drawn to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and, although a matter of privilege may have been involved, the hon. Member apologised and the matter was not pursued any further.
Here, a journalist has been accused of a breach of privilege, he has apologised and yet the House is in danger of taking the matter further. That suggests to me that there is one rule for Members of Parliament and quite a different rule for journalists. That is patently unsustainable and I hope that the House will pause long and hard before accepting the motion.
If the matter were to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, we could be open to the accusation not just of over-sensitivity but of seeking to defend ourselves against any accusation or criticism in the press. Since we take to ourselves the very privilege of criticising anyone whom we please, under cover of our own privilege, it ill becomes us to use such a mechanism against members of the press. For those reasons, I hope that the House will soundly reject the motion.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Like most of my hon. Friends, when I read the column by the journalist from The Guardian I was furious. I felt that it was quite

unjust that a Labour Member who was ill should have been named in the way that he was and that other Labour Members who were in various Committees should have been attacked for not being in the House when, in fact, more Labour Members than Conservative Members were in the Chamber. I felt furious. Indeed, I almost phoned Mr. Ian Aitken about the matter. I did not phone him because I reflected on the issue and I realised that if we are in the House of Commons, we are bound on occasion, whether we like it or not, having stood for Parliament and come to the House, to be attacked and traduced, sometimes quite wrongly.
I remember The Sunday Times saying that I would cheerfully see off my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) because I was the Stalin of the Labour party. I did not raise a matter of privilege. I took the paper to court. Having taken it to court, I had quite a nice holiday in Italy. We have to accept that whether we like it or not, on occasions we will be wrongly attacked.
I think that the young journalist on The Guardian who wrote the article was absolutely wrong, but the House would make the position far worse if we decided to make it a matter of privilege. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), whose anger I understand—I feel as strongly as he does about the matter—to accept that The Guardian has apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis).
Even if we are not absolutely happy with that apology, the House should accept it and hope that in future other people will take a little more notice of what actually happens in the House of Commons, and understand that hon. Members cannot be here on every occasion because we have to attend Standing Committees, Select Committees and internal party committees. I worry about television in the House precisely because some people outside the House will not understand that.
I do not wish to say much more, except to give some advice to the young gentleman who writes for The Guardian. There used to be a journalist here called Frank Johnson. He pilloried me regularly, but in such a way that I used to roar with laughter. I hope that the present sketch writers will follow the example of Frank Johnson and write in a way that is not harmful or nasty and which right hon. and hon. Members can fully appreciate.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Many Conservative Members probably accept that the offending piece in The Guardian was gratuitously offensive and probably untrue, but surely that should not be the cause of any surprise to Opposition Members and should not cause them to behave like coy little political virgins and feign surprise that The Guardian for once is not the sole repository of the truth. After all, surely a paper that is so forward as to propound the fact that it takes an independent, non-partisan line and stress the strength of its profession on that score should arouse our suspicion in the first place.
The Guardian has already given two whingeing apologies, so it is wrong for hon. Members to waste the House's time in trying to extract a further pound of flesh. If hon. Members honestly believe that they have a case, they have the option to seek recourse in the courts and sue for libel. They should do that rather than waste the time of the House. What surprises Conservative Members about this shameful little episode is the way in which


Opposition Members cringe like delicate little flowers at the first onset of a late frost in spring. After all, are they not the very same hon. Members who daily trade insults and invective across the Floor of the Chamber? Perhaps we should not be too surprised by the inconsistency of their attitude. In recent years we have seen how they are prepared to use the most vile invective against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, yet they cry, "foul" the moment my right hon. Friend uses even a mildly harsh word in reply.
I hope that this unpleasant little episode may have a mildly cathartic influence on the Opposition. I hope that they will now realise the idiocy of using gratuitous insults. I hope that they will take the opportunity to brush up their debating skills and limit themselves to real arguments rather than ignorant abuse.

4 pm

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I find it very difficult to follow that magnum opus. I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has almost made me change my mind.
I begin by declaring an interest. I drink and I have been known to take a catnap in the Library. Indeed, when I once appeared as a barrister before the Lord Chief Justice of England, he said to me, "I can see you are doing your incompetent best, Mr. Sedgemore."
Nevertheless, I hope that we will take the motion seriously. It is serious for The Guardian, that radical newspaper—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What?

Mr. Sedgemore: A radical newspaper, which is not only short of money and a decent layout artist, but if I may paraphrase Swift, is in danger of dying by swallowing its own lies. Having said that, I want to defend The Guardian and the right of journalists to abuse hon. Members.
All my life I have had the misfortune to be laughed at. You will understand, Mr. Speaker—well, perhaps you will not, because perhaps no one has ever laughed at you—that it hurts. The position became unbearable when I was at the school debating society one year and one of my opponents described me as "a long streak of spit". I thought, "Well, this cannot go on." I was lying in the bath and I had a brilliant idea. I said to myself, "I know what I'll do to stop it,; I'll become an MP. Then I'll get the protection of the all-powerful, all-party Committee of Privileges. No longer will anyone in this life be able to hold me up to hatred, ridicule and contempt." Imagine my surprise when only last week, as a result of something that I said during proceedings on the Education Reform Bill in Committee, a journalist who is sitting in the Reporter's Gallery described me as "Derek Jameson's voice coming out of Kerry Packer's body."
I do not know how hon. Members can worry about 200 Members of Parliament being called "incompetent, lazy drunks" when a tender, delicate soul like myself is being likened to Sid Yobbo.
I am not claiming that Andrew Rawnsley is entirely innocent. I am not sure how I am supposed to respond, as a paid-up member of the National Union of Journalists, when he argues in his column, as he argues every day, that politicians are even more odious than journalists.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I am not one of those hon. Members who believes in vulgar, personal abuse—[Interruption.] I prefer to leave such abuse to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. I understand that at this very moment he is seeking to raise the standards of artistic appreciation in our country by trying to persuade The Sun to set up a Kelvin MacKenzie room at the Tate gallery to house a permanent collection of nipples. That is the kind of abuse that we could do without. If the right hon. Member for Chingford had not become a Member of Parliament, I am sure that he would have become a PPE—not a graduate in politics, philosophy and economics, but a purveyor of pornography extraordinaire.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will agree that we should judge political abuse by three standards. First, abuse in politics must be treated as an art. Secondly, abuse is at its best when it is in thoroughly bad taste. Finally, — this was the only point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West picked up himself—abuse should at some stage hint at reality. That is where poor little Rawnsley up there in the Press Gallery, the fearless scribe from Farringdon road whose goolies are about to be tweaked today, got it wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman seek to use language that is more parliamentary?

Mr. Sedgemore: You are absolutely right. Mr. Speaker. I am getting carried away. Obviously Mr. Rawnsley came to the House and was hard-pressed, like the rest of use, to earn a crust. He did not have a story, and the classic story to make up in the Reporters' Gallery is the "empty Chamber" story.
Before I finish, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West two questions. I want my hon. Friend to consider some of the best abuse down the ages and I want to give one example from across the Atlantic and one from this side. When my hon. Friend replies and withdraws his motion I want to know how he would respond to such abuse.
How would my hon. Friend have responded to these comments made by Harry Truman?
Richard Nixon is a no-good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in.
Also, how would my hon. Friend have responded to the classic 18th century argument between Lord Sandwich and John Wilkes?
'Pon your honour, Wilkes, I don't know whether you'll die on the gallows or of the pox.
To which Wilkes replied:
That must depend, my Lord, upon whether I embrace your Lordship's principles or your Lordship's mistress.
A serious point is involved. It is important to preserve the freedom of the press, and that necessitates the freedom of journalists in the Press Gallery to abuse hon. Members down here on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Robert C. Hughes: The final comments of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) were important. We must remember that in this relatively comical exchange across the Chamber there is an attempt to hound a journalist. We may well be inexperienced, but he has an absolute right to


report this Chamber. I regard—[Interruption.] It was patronising for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to remark upon the journalist's age and to suggest that he does not know what he is talking about. That was particularly patronising when we consider the offensive remarks that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has made in this Chamber and in other chambers in which he has spoken in other guises.
I cannot compete with the historical analogies drawn by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. However, I wonder why the hon. Member for Newham. North-West is so sensitive about one particular column in one newspaper. Why was it more offensive for Andrew Rawnsley in The Guardian to say what he said and for complaints to be made in the House about those comments when we consider comments made in the columns in various newspapers last week?
For example, The Daily Telegraph called my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley)
A restaurant critic who … occasionally visits the Commons.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—[Interruption.] wait for it—was described as "sadistic" in The Times. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was reported in The Times as bearing
a remarkable resemblance to a member of the Munster family.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) was
glad of a further opportunity to practise his vocal impersonation of the late Gracie Fields's hairdresser.
Such comments are made day after day and have been made about almost every hon. Member.
There is no need for apologies from The Guardian, despite the fact that it has offered one twice. There is no need to complain about the words that are used to describe hon. Members. There is no need for the fuss and bawling across the Chamber that we have heard from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West can dish it out, but he cannot take it—he has proved that today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I cannot add to the analyses or jokes about this motion, but, in asking my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—he is one of my favourite colleagues—to pause, I speak as one who had the misfortune to be investigated by the Privileges Committee 21 years ago. Whatever anyone who has been investigated by that Committee may say, I can assure the House that it is no joke to have been investigated by Lord Elwyn Jones, Duncan Sandys and others.
The Privileges Committee should be reserved for the most important and weighty matters. It is a senior Committee of the House, and the swings and roundabouts of journalism should not take up its time. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), is nodding in agreement. As one who has been before the Committee of Privileges, I say this with some vehemence. If the Committee is to consider anything next week or the week after that, it should consider what is happening between British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the motion before the House.

Mr. Dalyell: It would be a far better subject. Or, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has raised the subject, let the Privileges Committee turn its mind to the subject of question 10 on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister. It concerns Mr. Bernard Ingham and Mr. Charles Powell—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us try not to widen the motion. I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the motion.

Mr. Dalyell: I say to my hon. Friends that if they vote for the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West they will be going down a path that many of us may later regret having entered upon.

Mr. Brian Wilson: This has been a useful debate. I should have thought that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about Richard Nixon would have earned him an honorary knighthood.
I shall speak in three capacities: first, as one who was not here a year ago and who therefore read the sketches avidly as a political activist in the country—and tended to believe what was in them. I can well remember reacting to the scathing references to hon. Members in the sketches. I would certainly have wondered, a couple of weeks ago, where the other 200-odd Labour Members were, on the basis of what I read in the sketch. So I can well understand the sensitivity of Opposition Members — and Conservative Members—to the sort of dishonesty that appeared in Andrew Rawnsley's column.
My second capacity is that of an hon. Member who now knows the truth of what happens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, virtually all Opposition Members—and probably most Conservative Members — were engaged in proper parliamentary business at the time when Mr. Rawnsley suggested they were engaged in less worthy business.
My third capacity—this is the only reason why I speak in the debate—is as a member of the National Union of Journalists who until recently earned his living by writing for newspapers, including, from time to time, The Guardian. When I wrote for The Guardian, I was more worried about whether the typographical errors would extend to getting the football scores wrong.
On the whole, it is much more important to safeguard the rights of journalists and to take account of the freedom of the press than to get too worked up over this sort of thing. It is absurd that for the past hour or so we have been talking about The Guardian and one of its writers when all hon. Members know that there are standards of journalism in this country that are a hundred times worse than anything that appears in The Guardian or in Mr. Rawnsley's column.
If we want to discuss freedom of the press and the right of reply, of which this is one aspect, by all means let us do so; but let us not pillory one journalist for one bad column on a thin day. Let us address ourselves to the wider issues of freedom of the press and ownership and control of newspapers.
I am less worried by what Mr. Rawnsley wrote than by a little thing that happened last night, when an incident took place, or did not take place, in the Chamber, and the Secretary of State for Scotland went running out to tell The Sun and the BBC, to name but two outlets—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject? He should confine himself to the motion.

Mr. Wilson: To adduce motives for behaviour in the way that the Secretary of State—and Mr. Rawnsley—did comes from the dirty tricks kennel of Mr. Bernard Ingham. Let us not hear about Mr. Rawnsley without hearing the same about others who try to operate a regime if disinformation about what goes on inside, as well as outside, this House.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Would it not be wise for the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to remember the old Chinese proverb which goes—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear it.

Mr. Rathbone: I remind hon. Members of the old Chinese proverb: "A little is all very well, but enough is too much."

Mr. Peter Snape: I have been a reader of The Guardian for many years. In the 1960s, before my goods train got under way, I used to lean back in the guard's van and read Mr. Norman Shrapnel, who wrote entertaining stuff about the activities of hon. Members in the House. Since those days the parliamentary reports in The Guardian and other newspapers have appeared to take second place to the witticisms or otherwise of the sketch writers.
There is a serious point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said. I have been a fan of various parliamentary sketch-writers for years. Mr. Michael White and Mr. Frank Johnson, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) alluded, were probably two of the better sketch writers in the Gallery. I was also a fan, although I did not always agree with his politics or philosophy, of Mr. Edward Pearce. I tabled an early-day motion about him 18 months ago. When Edward Pearce, a sketch writer, criticised the Conservative party, he was removed from the Press Gallery by the proprietor of The Daily Telegraph, who said that he did not buy The Daily Telegraph for it to be full of anti-Conservative propaganda—a sentiment which would appeal enormously to Conservative Members, if they were capable of reading or assimilating a parliamentary sketch in The Daily Telegraph or anywhere else.
So a serious point arises from my hon. Friend's motion, although I hope he will not press it to a Division. I know that he is a great traditionalist about matters concerning the House, although the Trappist philosophy of the Whips Office does not appear to appeal to him greatly at present. I hope that he, like me, will consider the article unworthy of the blunderbuss of parliamentary privilege. I am sure that my learned Friends have given my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) suitable advice, and that he, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walton will spend the summer on the Italian riviera at someone else's expense. I must confess to a dash of envy about that.
I have never met Mr. Andrew Rawnsley, but, judging from his picture in The Guardian, he is only about 14 years of age. Indeed, he appears to be almost as callow as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) who,

despite his reference to debating skills, appeared to be nothing other than the spokesman for pre-pubescent youth.
I hope that, in making my plea to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, I do not sound too much like a sketch writer. I should think that, arising from the debate, there will be an opportunity to write tomorrow's sketch if only to complain about the lack of impromptu debating skills demonstrated by most Conservative Members. It is bad enough that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) looks like a barrow boy, but he does not have to sound like one too.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West will reflect that, to turn out the brigade of guards of parliamentary privilege to arrest a wolf cub such as Mr. Andrew Rawnsley, is not what this House should be about.

Mr. Roger King: All hon. Members like to listen to or to read parliamentary sketches and to note whether we have been mentioned.
I believe that it was unfortunate that Mr. Rawnsley mentioned the absence of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) during Prime Minister's Question Time. We are now aware of the reason for his inability to ask his question. Naturally, any sketch writer may draw a certain conclusion from that absence and judge that the hon. Gentleman is one of the disappearing masses of the Labour party. The writer has apologised for that one particular misdemeanour.
At some stage we all, I hope, get into the sketch writers' columns. I am proud of the fact that I was in one entitled "Creep of the Year". That article also mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I am proud of the fact that we were associated, because no one represents principles better than my hon. Friend. However, he was accused of trying to sacrifice his soul for a gong. I am not aware that he has done so on any occasion. Since my hon. Friend has admitted that he has never read The Guardian I am not sure whether he has written to condemn the newspaper for that approach.
My claim to fame as creep of the year is that I believe I am the only person who has successfully driven my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) out of the Chamber as a result of what I said. If that is correct, I am prepared to accept that achievement in the manner in which it was meant in the article. We have to learn to look at sketches and laugh at them as appropriate.
I accept that Mr. Rawnsley's article was slightly excessive, but I hope that we will consider his article in the knowledge that he has learnt a lesson. We look forward to reading much more accurate sketches in future.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I always believe that the House is at its worst when it is being its most pompous, and it is usually at its most pompous when it is talking about its rights and privileges. However, today— bless the House — it has not been particularly pompous. One wonders what would have been the reaction of some Conservative Members if the abuse in the article had been directed at the Conservative Benches.
You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the article was, prima facie, a breach of privilege. Therefore, that gave my hon.
Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) the opportunity to propose a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Privilege, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, has taken many forms over the years. It was not long ago in the history of the Parliament that it was a breach of privilege to report the happenings in this place, whether such reports were accurate or not. As long ago as 1699 the House resolved that misreporting the proceedings of Members was a breach of privilege.
It is worth noting that the motives behind my hon. Friend's motion do not introduce any elements of novelty regarding the requirements that we would wish the people in the Press Gallery to meet. Their predecessors who attempted to report this place, when such reporting could result in imprisonment or worse, justified their desire to report on the basis that the accurate reporting of elected Members' actions was a sound basis for democracy and accountability. There is absolutely no occasion in history when those reporters suggested that the misreporting of Members was a sound basis for accountability or democracy. My hon. Friend, in wishing for some accuracy and even a lack of malice in such reporting, is not introducing into our discussion, or into any discussion about the freedom of the press, any new elements.
I must admit that, initially, I had not read the article by Mr. Rawnsley because I find it almost impossible to find any article in The Guardian since it redesigned its layout. When the article was drawn to my attention, it appeared to me that, again, The Guardian was falling somewhat short of the standards that that paper laid down in the days before fancy layout became more important than reporting the facts.
If my hon. Friend is asking The Guardian to subscribe to its old standards, I believe that he is, in fact, asking its reporters to remember the world-famous dictum of C. P. Scott—The Guardian's most famous editor—rather than being free with the facts and even freer with its comments. C.P. Scott said:
Comment is free but facts are sacred.
Nothing could have been further from the basis of Mr. Rawnsley's article. I shall read out what Scott said in detail, but I must be careful not to read the wrong quotation, or I might find myself in breach of privilege. The next quotation in the "The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations" is from Captain Robert Falcon Scott, who said:
Great God! this is an awful place.
C. P. Scott said:
Its primary office"—
that is, of a newspaper—
is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred".
We cannot just blame Mr. Rawnsley for his article. The people who purport to edit that newspaper must also accept the responsibility. Mr. Rawnsley and his editor must realise that they have fallen far short of the standards to which that newspaper used to subscribe.
There is one new element in our discussion. Recently we voted to set up a Select Committee to consider all aspects of televising the proceedings of the House. One of the tasks of the Committee is to come up with guidelines to provide safeguards for the House and individual Members, which must be followed by the television authorities and its

employees. Even now both sides of the House doubt whether the television authorities will stick to any guidelines that are laid down.
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West will not press his motion, but those who are enthusiastic for that course of action should bear in mind the effects of television. The television authorities will not be keen to follow any guidelines for their coverage of the House, and if they see we are not even prepared to refer to the Privileges Committee the guidelines for the scribes in the Gallery which were laid down about 150 years ago, they will think that, if they push, they will get their way whatever they do.
We must bear in mind the consequence of our actions today. On balance, I believe that, to take terrible retribution against Mr. Rawnsley—I must admit that appearing before the people likely to sit on the Privileges Committee would be terrible retribution—for a sloppy, second-rate article of which he and The Guardian should be ashamed, might be going too far.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Just as I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, were right to give this matter precedence in debate over the business of the House set down today, so I believe that we should have regard to the important debates that are to follow, and therefore I shall be brief in my remarks.
It has been a good-natured, humorous and entertaining debate, but there are some serious points to be made, if only for consideration for the future. Your decision, Mr. Speaker, to give the matter precedence—this is an important point, because the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did not quite get this right—does not imply that a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of the House has occurred. For that reason, our task today is not to examine exhaustively all the arguments as to whether that has taken place, but simply to decide whether there is sufficient cause to refer to the Committee of Privileges the article in The Guardian newspaper of 2 March, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-west (Mr. Banks) proposes.
The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to enable hon. Members to carry out the job for which they have been elected. To enforce that privilege, the House has penal powers which it may decide to exercise in any particular case where there has been a breach of privilege. In deciding whether to make use of that power, the House would doubtless wish to take account of the recommendations that it approved on 6 February 1978. These derived from the report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1966–67, which took the view that, in general, the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible and only when it was satisfied that it was essential to do so to protect itself from substantial interference in the performance of its functions.
That leads me to the first set of arguments against accepting the motion, which were first made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and others—that the House would be behaving in a pompous and over-sensitive manner to bring in the full weight of the Committee of Privileges over this parliamentary sketch, for which some apology has already been made. The supplementey argument is that the House should he wary


of entering into a process where the penalties at its command are too draconian sensibly to be imposed and, therefore, that it would look foolish by having caused a fuss for no effect.
I appreciate the concerns revealed by those two lines of argument, and I am sure that they would have great force, but the logic of raising the matter on the Floor of the House is to refer it to a Committee of Privileges for two reasons. First, there is a general view that irresponsible criticism of the House may, over time, damage its standing and impair its effectiveness. No one is saying that the House should be immune from adverse comment, but, if our effectiveness is not to be damaged, there is a point beyond which legitimate criticism cannot go. In those circumstances, the House should properly be concerned about what is said in the press.

Mr. Dalyell: Are there not matters with which Privileges Committee should be much more concerned, such as the misbehaviour of the most senior Minister in such matters as Westland and the bombing of Libya?

Mr. Wakeham: That is the hon. Gentleman's view, and I might have my own view about that, but we are not dealing with that this afternoon.
The immoderate tone of the article, its perhaps wilful lack of understanding of, or reference to, the work done by hon. Members outside the Chamber, and its irresponsible focusing on the absence of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), apparently with no check on the true position, raises, in one view, sufficient reason to justify consideration by the Committee of Privileges.
The second reason is that referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges is the best way to provide the House with a further means of considering the matter. In that referral the House is asking the Committee to consider, first, whether a breach of privilege or contempt of the House has taken place and, secondly, if so, what action should be taken against those who have committed it.
A range of options are open to the Committee of Privileges in the consideration of the article. The

Committee would make a judgment as to the appropriate response and report to the House. If, however, the matter is not referred to the Committee of Privileges, the question of the attitude of the House to the article would rest at the end of this debate on the fact that we do not think it worth referring the matter to the Committee.
I am content either way. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West presses his motion, I shall support him. If he withdraws it, I shall be perfectly content and that will be the end of the matter.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the Leader if the House for his comments. The debate has been useful and it has certainly been entertaining, with a serious content as well.
The House must be mindful of the fact that wilful abuse of hon. Members in this place will, in the end, undoubtedly undermine any public confidence that people might have in the House and how we operate our procedures. However, I believe that referral to the Committee of Privileges is perhaps heavy-handed. One would like, perhaps, to have referred the matter somewhere else, but, as the Leader of the House will know, there is nowhere else that one can refer such a matter.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his contribution to the debate. Indeed, I was most impressed by the arguments put forward by Labour Members. I was particularly grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning Mr. Ed Pearce. In one of his sketch articles in The Daily Telegraph, when I was chair of the arts and recreation committee of the GLC, Mr. Pearce referred to me as
the snarling czar of culture in London".
I was less than amused by that comment, but I should like to report to the House that I shall be having dinner with Mr. Pearce later this week, which shows that I am of a very forgiving nature.
In view of what the Leader of the House has said, as the House has made clear its feelings, and in eager anticipation of a champagne supper with Mr. Andrew Rawnsley, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Estimates Day

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Supplementary Estimates, 1987–88

CLASS IV, VOTE 3

Storm Damage

[Relevant document: First Report from the Agriculture Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 272-I of Session 1987–88) on Storm Damage of 16 October 1987]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that the Vote chosen for the debate was recommended by the Liaison Committee, as far as it relates to the storm damage recovery scheme 1987.
The House agreed to the Liaison Committee's report of 3 March, and the Standing Order No. 131 recommendations of the Liaison Committee thereby have effect as if they were orders of the House. The debate should be confined, therefore, to the storm damage recovery scheme in 1987.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: As a result of what you have announced, Mr. Speaker, the House will already know that sub-head 3(c) of the Supplementary Estimates provides a mere £350,000 for the storm damage recovery scheme, but I should not wish the debate to be diverted to that technical point, as we have rather more to say about the storm damage.
On the night of 16 October 1987, the country was hit by a hurricane so damaging that there has never been one so great in either living or recorded memory. The damage is estimated, in insurance terms alone, at over £900 million and the total damage is likely to be well in excess of £1 billion. It was infinitely the worst natural disaster that this country has ever seen. The storm blew down some 15 million trees and has left lying on the ground over 4 million cu m of wood.
At the beginning of the Session, the Select Committee on Agriculture resolved that it would investigate in the long term forestry and land use and it proposed that, in the circumstances of the disaster and of the problems already being experienced by December among those afflicted by the damage, we would do a rapid study of the matter and see who was affected and in what way.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend starts making magnificent exaggerations about the worst disaster that this country has ever seen, I remind him of the floods in Scotland in 1942 and 1947 and

of the gales in 1950, 1958 and 1968 in which our timber crop was decimated; but we were not so greedy as to ask for help and we were not so selfish as to demand it.

Mr. Wiggin: I shall have something to say later about the merits, or otherwise, of Government assistance for storm damage and natural disasters. However, I advise my hon. and learned Friend that, in financial terms, none of the disasters he mentioned were of anything like the same scale as the storm in October. There is a precedent for Government assistance in that the last great storm in Scotland—I think that it was the 1968 storm that he mentioned—achieved a Government grant for the transport of fallen timber—[Interruption.] I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend is not correct—there is a precedent for assistance. It is not a question of competition. The Committee dealt with one particular matter and we have looked at it in considerable detail.
I begin by dealing with some of the modest and less important aspects as they pertain to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is true that the Government responded by producing greater flexibility under the agricultural improvement scheme. We believe that that will be of some assistance to some farmers, providing that they do not rub up against the overall limits that have been imposed by the Community. We should like the Minister to exercise some flexibility about the deadline for notifications under the storm damage recovery scheme as the closing date approaches.
We fully acknowledge the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who gave evidence before the Committee. I am sorry that he is not with us this afternoon, but I am certain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the debate with great competence. There is a feeling in the affected counties that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not absorbed the seriousness of the storm, its extent or the damage that it has done, not only to landowners, but to tenants and to many other people involved in horticulture and agriculture.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Without interrupting my hon. Friend's train of thought or anticipating what he is about to say, may I ask him to confirm that it is estimated that each acre of woodland that has been affected will cost over £1,000 just in terms of clear felling, let alone replanting? I am sure that my hon. Friend will come to that point.

Mr. Wiggin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend although I do not think that "clear felling" is the right phrase for timber that has already fallen; my hon. Friend means clearing up the damage. I agree entirely with the figure that he has quoted, but I think that in some cases it will be rather higher.
The Ministry of Agriculture commendably produced the storm damage recovery scheme, about which I was speaking and £1 million allocated to it. The purpose of the scheme — I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will elaborate on this—was to assist farmers to cope with environmental damage, such as fallen trees in hedgerows, and damage to the countryside—separate from forestry and local authority damage. We believe that £1 million is likely to prove totally inadequate and, as we gain experience I hope that the Government will remain flexible and revise the figure if the Select Committee should be proved correct.
We then turned to the problem of glasshouses. I fully accept —as does the Committee—the principle that insurable risks should not be assisted by central Government in such circumstances. It is normal practice for glasshouse growers to insure their glasshouses, as even minor storms can affect glasshouses and most growers take out insurance to cover that risk. However, the damage was so widespread and so huge that it seems that the figures used for insurance purposes have almost universally proved inadequate.
We were told that, perhaps not unreasonably, glaziers working on 15 October would charge, with overheads, about £10 per hour, but by the following morning that figure had risen threefold to £30 per hour or more—that is, if anybody could be found to do the work. That is market forces. If one had insured one's glasshouse for £10 per hour for repair costs, finding that one had to pay £30 per hour would be a serious imposition. We received substantial evidence, from responsible bodies such as the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, that the majority of glasshouse growers were at least 20 per cent. under-insured.
I do not have to remind my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the competitive nature of the glasshouse industry. It faces competition from across the water. Indeed, many of us believe that it faces unfair competition, especially from Holland. Because of the magnitude of the storm, the ability to replace fallen glasshouses was much reduced. Manufacturers' order books are full and, of course, they are unlikely to wish to expand their capacity too greatly because this is a one-off. I hope that sympathetic attention will be given to the needs of that important sector of the horticultural industry.
We commend the grant that was given to those whose fruit trees were knocked over—£2 per tree is welcome assistance. I know that the Government will he assiduous is seeing that only those who suffered genuine storm damage can receive that subsidy. However, it seems unfair that if, instead of growing apples, pears, cherries or whatever, across the fence one grows gooseberries, strawberries, vines or even hops and suffer the same damage, no subsidy is payable on those crops. That is a point of equity which I am sure that the Government will consider.
Perhaps the most important evidence that we took was that from the Forestry Commission. The House knows that the Forestry Commission is the agency of my hon. Friend's Department in England. We examined the Forestry Commission in some detail and endorsed its policy of restraining the production of pine and hardwoods, so far as it could. The huge surplus of fallen timber in the south-east has not only reduced prices but completely consumed the capacity of all the mills in the area.
We commend the service and advice that the Forestry Commission has given. It has put its experts into the area to provide assistance to all woodland owners who were affected by the storm. We recommend that the proposals put to the Government on tax concessions for woodland growers who were badly affected are considered sympathetically, although at this time of the year I do not expect the Minister to respond to that in any detail.
I turn now to the most important aspect, which was emphasised to us wherever we went and by all those who

gave evidence to us. Many of my hon. Friends have spoken to me about it. I refer to the problem of clearance. The difficulty of clearing timber that has fallen in such circumstances has to be witnessed to be understood. It is not a question of trees falling in line, which can be neatly recovered. Trees have fallen higgledy-piggledy, with their roots torn up and boughs smashed. In some cases the impossibility of even getting inside the woods to assess the damage makes the cost of the operation infinitely greater than in any other circumstances.
I once saw the damage done by the explosion at Mount St. Helens, where hundreds of thousands of acres of trees were flattened, but they were flattened in the same direction. In this case, trees have fallen in different directions. Indeed, it reminds one more of the battle of the Somme than of a former grand forest.
Owners are assessing their position. Many find that the sort of figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) mentioned earlier of £1,000 per acre or £1,200 per acre for clearing the fallen wood are simply beyond their means, let alone the practical business considerations that would merit such expenditure. For that reason we take the recommendation of the action committee — a rather unfortunate name for the committee, but it was set up promptly with the Forestry Commission's assistance. A timber merchant was the chairman and timber growers were well represented.
The committee argued, we believe too modestly, that a grant for clearance would he best in the form of a transport grant to move fallen timber from the afflicted area to mills elsewhere in the country that had the capacity to process the wood.
It came up with suggestions for doing that, just before Christmas. We are now into March, almost six months after the disaster, and not one peep has been heard from the Forestry Commission and not one comment has been made by the Government.
In the interim, the fallen beechwood, which stains very rapidly, is deteriorating, possibly to the point of having no commercial value. It is expected that fallen pine will be consumed within the next few months by some avaricious beetle that attacks fallen timber of that type. By the end of the summer, if nothing has been done, a large natural resource will have been allowed to go to waste. That is another reason for sympathetic consideration by the Government for getting things moving.
The Committee examined, although it was not strictly within its purview, evidence from the Department of the Environment, which is charged with dealing with smaller woodlands. We came across a sorry story. The Government have used the Bellwin proposals drafted by Lord Bellwin, who was a Minister in 1981, when he was asked—

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly): It was 1983.

Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He was a Minister from 1979. In 1983 he was asked to draw up a formula to deal with natural disasters to recompense local authorities that were forced to go out the next morning and deal with a massive disaster. Some 87 authorities were affected by the storm. They went forth and spent £98·6 million on clearing storm damage in the immediate aftermath of last October's storm.
Under the formula provided—based on figures from the Association of County Councils, which sent formal


evidence to the Committee on 24 February — the Government will provide a special grant of £18·3 million, but on expenditure below the 1p rate threshold the authorities will lose block grants of £9·8 million. The Government's net contribution will be £8·5 million, so their approach to the enormous burden facing local authorities is to give a grant of less than 20 per cent. and then to more than halve the benefit of even that level of support by clawing back block grants. The association claims that 24 local authorities expect to lose more in grant than they receive in special grants. I am sure that the House will find that unacceptable.
Although the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement on the matter, it did nothing to put right the problem, and although the Government said that their basic principle was that authorities should not profit from the storm, they will hardly be seen to be generous if they give away with one hand and take back with the other.

Sir Peter Hordern: I do not know whether the Minister will reply to that important point, but in West Sussex the authority spent £8·5 million, which will generate an estimated £4 million net of additional grant. There is no question of central Government making a profit out of our storm damage expenditure.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Wiggin: I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), but both my hon. Friends were seeking to intervene.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have great respect for the authenticity of the Committee report, but on this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has been overtaken by events, as I will make clear in my speech. There is no question of the Government making a profit out of East Sussex, but at the time my hon. Friend was doing his preparatory work, that was the impression.

Mr. Wiggin: I am prepared to accept that in the case of East and West Sussex, as I believe that both authorities are relatively satisfied. I have a letter dated 24 February, which is not so very long ago, from the Association of County Councils. It has not been questioned subsequently by those who have had access to the letter, and it says that 24 local authorities are worse off. I am glad that the authorities my hon. Friends represent are not, but none should be. The whole idea of assistance after a storm is to help out.

Mr. Michael Lord: I represent the county of Suffolk, which falls very much into the category my hon. Friend describes. We have suffered a penalty, by being allowed to spend only up to a 1p rate on storm damage, which means that the Treasury will benefit from Suffolk's misfortune.

Mr. Wiggin: That confirms what I have been saying. I do not wish to be drawn into this matter, because I believe that the rate support grant basis is bonkers and I have consistently voted against it. It shows that the Bellwin scheme for assistance does not always apply as it ought to. We strongly recommend that the Government should put right the wrong in relation to the storm and should devise a formula so that criticisms are not made in the future.
The French Government have indicated that they will spend some £15 million on storm damage. We have received evidence that they are considering how they can help with the recovery of second quality wood which is proving almost unsaleable. The French lost about twice as much woodland as we did. My Committee wishes to keep an eye on the matter as it progresses and, if there is little action or if complaints continue to be made, we shall investigate the matter. We will follow the progress of the French to see how our Government compare with theirs in the matter.
We strongly urge the Government to take account of the evidence from local authorities about the scale and timetable of the clearance problem. Government strategy to support general amenity restoration can be meaningful only if it is based on realistic, realisable objectives. It must be properly financed over an orderly, five-year programme.
I am fully seized, having sat in the seat that my hon. Friend the Minister now occupies, of the Government principle that public money is not always readily available to assist in all disasters. A substantial principle is involved. On the other hand, the Government have breached the principle—in my view justifiably, and with the support of all Conservative Members — in recent disasters. Donations were given after Bradford and Zeebrugge. When I had a serious disaster in my constituency the Government did not contribute, but they have changed their view and there may be a necessary humanity in that, which I am not criticising.
With a natural disaster of this size, where people may not be able to do anything about the damage, in a civilised and responsible country we have a duty to consider our countryside and resources and to look after people who, if we do not assist them, will leave the shambles to deteriorate, which will affect wildlife, scenery and our natural resources. For those reasons, my Committee has made the recommendations it has.
I should like to conclude on a happy note, by commending very strongly the immediate reaction to the storm by the various Government Departments, in particular the Ministry of Agriculture, the local authorities, the electricity boards, the Army, the police and various private organisations, which acted so promptly and efficiently in the immediate aftermath of the storm.
We believe that the Government must have a more thorough and more long-term strategy in this matter. They can help with advice, but in this case they must now help with some finance. It would be unforgivable if, 10 years from now, we could still see the wreckage that that disastrous night produced in such a very large part of the south-east of our country.

5 pm

Dr. David Clark: Opposition Members, accept Mr. Speaker's guidance at the beginning of the debate that it should be restricted, as the Liaison Committee recommended, to the storm damage recovery scheme—a very narrow topic indeed. But I must place it on record that, while we accept that ruling in its entirety, we do not find this method of debating the Estimates the most satisfactory one.
It seems to us that one of the most important roles of Parliament is to monitor the Estimates, and those before us are very important indeed, covering as they do such issues as the dairy outgoers' scheme and, the storm


damage, and revealing the fact that the Government had no contingency moneys to deal with compensation for the Chernobyl-affected farmers in this financial year. However, we are not able to discuss those issues; we are restricted by the Liaison Committee's ruling. Therefore, we must accept that we can only debate the storm damage recovery scheme and, of course, the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, perhaps I should say that the House, through its Select Committees, can look at the whole range of Estimates. It is then up to the Houue, through the Select Committees, to decide which ones to examine and which to suggest for debate. So there is no reason why any of the Estimates should not have been debated if the Select Committees had looked at them.

Dr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Member for that comment, but perhaps I should explain why it is particularly inappropriate today. Alongside the debate on the storm damage recovery scheme, we are debating the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I suggest that this is not the most appropriate time. The report was published on Thursday. The evidence is not yet available; it has not yet been published. We still do not have the Government's response, and we have placed a very unfair burden on the Parliamentary Secretary in that, within 72 or 100 hours, he will have to give the Government's response on this very complicated issue. This is a very important issue, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has said, and we are not doing the work of the Select Committee justice by discussing the report today. But we have no option; that is all that we can do.

Mr. Wiggin: I confess to being a beginner in this matter—this is the first Select Committee that I have attended, let alone chaired—but I thought that it was highly commendable that not only were we able to come forward very quickly with our report but that hardly was the ink dry on the paper than we could debate it on the Floor of the House. The alternative, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, was that it should lie on a shelf gathering dust while other Select Committees made reports that the Liaison Committee might consider more important. So I grasped the opportunity for a debate and welcomed it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be churlish, because the Chairman of the Liaison Committee is sitting here listening and he may not let me have another go next time when we deal with Chernobyl.

Dr. Clark: I take that point, but I find it rather strange that the Liaison Committee recommended to the House that we should debate this report before it was published. It may be a matter of prophecy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but it is a very strange phenomenon indeed.
I welcome the debate, but the hon. Gentleman has the advantage, as have his fellow members of the Select Committee, of having had an opportunity to see the evidence. We in the House have not had that advantage. Therefore, we must make our judgment on the report itself, which, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit—and I understand the reason—is a short, quickie report.
It is five and half pages long and there is not a great deal in it to debate. Nevertheless, that is what we have to try and do.
I have made my point and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who have an influence in this will take the point on board. We are not criticising the way that it is done; we are criticising the timing. I am sure that everyone of good will will understand the point that I am making in this respect.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare on his presentation, on his analysis of the Select Committee's work and on explaining to us the reasons why it came to the conclusions that it did—conclusions with which, in general, I concur. It is a very worthwhile report. It is short, and I understand the reasons why, but even that short report provides evidence of the Government's lack of will to help alleviate the effect of the storm damage, which will affect our landscape for years to come and the livelihood of many farmers and horticulturists in the south-east of England, who are in great difficulty as they struggle, in many cases, to get their businesses hack on an even keel and start earning their living.
The Select Committee has produced this worthwile report and it is the duty of the House to press the Minister today to give us some reaction to the submissions put forward. Perhaps I might add the voice of the Labour party to that of the Select Committee in commending the speed and initiative of all the public servants concerned in their efforts to tackle the immediate aftermath of the storm. I only observe that it is a great pity that, as the report shows, their efforts were not reflected later in the Government's action.
However, the great storm, as it is now called, of 16 October will remain a non-event for the vast majority of people in this country. For those of us who live in the more temperate climes of the north of Britain it was a complete non-event. As the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) reminded us, there have been very many great storms, certainly north of the border. I well remember the 1968 wind-blow, which left many forests in Scotland completely flattened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman got it slightly wrong. There was Government aid on that occasion, to the extent of 75 per cent. I do not grumble. That was quite right, and it was a Labour Government who provided that finance to try and help put the matter right.
Not having experienced the storm at first hand in the south, I paid a visit to Kew gardens and other parts of the south of England in the days following the storm. I was shaken by the extent of the damage, as indeed was my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who accompanied me. It was a stark reminder of the terrible force of nature and of how small are the works of man. The sight of trees not only flattened but with their centres completely taken out as if by a corkscrew is something that I shall remember for many years.
I was also impressed by the fortitude of the farmers and horticulturists whose years of dedicated labour and whose investment were often lost in the force of that hurricane on that single night. The effect was traumatic.
I wish that the Government had been more generous in their response. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 24 of the Select Committee's report, in which it rejects the applications of the Bellwin formula. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that this was perhaps the main bone of contention that his Committee


had with the Government, and it is a bone of contention which Opposition Members share. We agree with the sentiment, because we find it reprehensible that even by accident the Treasury should make a profit out of this disaster.
We have heard from Conservative Members that certain counties have lost, and certain other counties have not been penalised by this formula. I remind the House that the Government agreed to grant-aid the local authorities in their efforts to deal with storm damage at the rate of 75 per cent. in excess of the penny rate levy. However, any expenditure within that amount would count for penalty, and would therefore be subject to a clawback by the Treasury. The letter from the Association of County Councils, dated 24 February and read out by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, is worth repeating. The association was referring to the general application of the rule as it affected the totality of councils, not individual councils.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Let me mention a bone of contention in this important matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment constantly assured the House, and wrote in letters, that there was no question of the Government making a profit out of the disaster, and I believed him. Then I heard from the leader of my county council that that did not seem to be the case: there was some dubiety about it. I am assured that it has all been cleared up now. I cannot believe that there is one law for East and West Sussex and another for the rest of the country, so that we do well and no one else does, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure us.

Dr. Clark: I hope so as well, but I should like to express my anxieties. An up-to-date letter received only today or yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) from the Secretary of State for the Environment may clarify the position.
The Association of County Councils made the point that on an expenditure of a penny rate threshold the 87 authorities concerned would lose the block grant of £9·8 million. It is worth quoting the last sentence of the association's letter:
In other words, the Government's approach to the enormous burden facing local authorities is to give a grant of less than 20 per cent., and then to more than halve the benefit of even that level of support by clawing back block grant.
Let me also quote from a letter from the chief executive of the London borough of Barnet, an area to which, I understand, every Minister is to pay special attention for some reason. On 23 November, the chief executive wrote to the Secretary of State:
For Barnet, the scheme requires a local contribution equal to the product of a penny rate, after which the Government will contribute 75 per cent. The effect of this is that the Council will have to finance the first £612,000 of the cost of rectifying the storm damage, together with 25 per cent. of the balance if the ultimate bill is above that figure. As the Council's budget is in excess of its GREA, all additional expenditure will bring a grant loss of £70,000 for each further £100,000 spent. Thus even at a one penny rate level, the effective cost to the Council could exceed £1 million.
Let me spell that out in my own words. The Barnet experience shows how the Department of the Environment and the Treasury together will profit to the extent of £70,000 for every £100,000 spent by the council on storm damage repair. Barnet ratepayers, in common with many

others, will have to raise £170,00 to spend £100,000 on storm repairs. That is a deliberate and established feature of Government controls on local authority expenditure.
The Barnet chief executive continued:
The Council feels that the Government's scheme of special financial assistance is quite inadequate to meet the circumstances of this natural disaster and moreover considers that the severity of this storm was such that the ratepayers of the Borough should not be put to a considerable extra burden.
That point was also exemplified by the Select Committee.
We have had assurances and counter-assurances, and I hope that the Minister will give us the definitive assurance tonight. But in a letter dated 8 March headed
Storm damage: agricultural committee report",
to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, the Secretary of State for the Environment explained why he believed that there would be no penalty:
I continue to believe that prudent authorities should have budgeted for a contingency up to the threshold, including the block grant consequences, and that it is right therefore for them to bear these costs.
What the Secretary of State is saying is that every local authority in the country should have had contingency funds to meet any emergency. The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) says that he agrees with that, but the view of the Select Committee and of the hon. Member for Western-super-Mare is that the storm was not a normal contingency, but a national disaster par excellence. They believe that the Government should recognise that as well.
Under the Government's formula, those authorities will be penalised, because it is a fact of life that almost every local authority in the country did not have sufficient contingency funds to meet the effect of the disaster. That is why authorities such as Suffolk have openly come out and said that they had been penalised. I ask the Minister to examine the matter, and, if he cannot answer today—it is very complicated—to try to get to the bottom of it. If there is any chance of anyone losing out, let us put the matter right. That, I am sure, is the will of both sides of the House.
Paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report deals with the scale of damage affecting the glasshouse industry. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly pointed out, immediately after the disaster the laws of the market were brought into play. Money to pay for new glass, and the skilled labour required for the reconstruction, were found to be in short supply.
Given that problem, and the exceptional difficulties in which growers will be placed in the coming season—for the storm damage was not limited to one night; it will affect their livelihoods and production in the ensuing weeks, months and, in some cases, years—will the Minister reconsider the possibility of providing extra help for horticulture? I remind him that it is of tremendous value to the country, providing high-quality products such as fresh vegetables and fruit, and is often neglected. It is the Cinderella of the agricultural industry, and is facing severe foreign competition, which will take every possible opportunity to squeeze out of the market many of those affected by the storm.

Mr. Lord: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the horticultural industry is also one of the least subsidised, and does not depend on Government grants for anything in the normal course of events? An extraordinary event such as this surely justifies the provision of help.

Dr. Clark: I happily take the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, I shall take it a stage further. I believe that the scheme drawn up by the Minister was too narrow, and I find it difficult to understand why hop and soft fruit growers were excluded. That point was seized on by the Select Committee with some force. Why are the Government not prepared to help growers who were affected by the storm?
I hope that the Minister will not reiterate the evidence of his colleague to the Select Committee that the Government could not support growers
on the grounds that overall damage to these sectors was not great
although he acknowledged cases of individual hardship. That is no excuse for meanness. Even if only one person had been affected on that night, he would have to claim.
In its report, the Select Committee paid much attention to the subject of timber. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare reminded us, we lost approximately 15 million trees on the night of the storm, which represents approximately 4 million cu m of timber—about seven or eight years supply. Some 20 per cent. of the woodlands in the worst affected areas of East and West Sussex, Kent and Suffolk were destroyed.
On top of the ravages of the Dutch elm disease, the significance of those losses is even more poignant. Woodland owners in the private and public sectors are faced with the formidable task of clearing up and replanting trees and with a financial loss as a result of the glut of timber on the market.
It is only right and proper for the House to put on record its debt of gratitude to the Forestry Commission for the policy that it has adopted. It has reduced the amount of its timber to be felled to help to keep up the price of timber for the private woodland owner. However, it is still quite likely that the price of some timber will fall by 30 per cent.
The Forestry Commission's flexible approach has shown the nation the value of having a mix of privately and publicly owned woodland. The Forestry Commission, because it is publicly owned, was able to limit the supply of timber in the national interest. None of us would have expected the privately run forestry industry to make such a sacrifice because its investors would not have permitted it. In essence, the Forestry Commission has created an intervention store to manage a surplus product.
That example is one good reason why we should attempt to achieve a consensus on forest policy and obtain the right mix of private and public forestry. For many years there was agreement among hon. Members on this matter. I regret that the Government have seen fit to renege on that policy. I hope that the lessons of the storm will persuade them to think again.
One general matter that is repeatedly referred to in the Select Committee's report is the need for flexibility. The effects of the storm were far greater than anyone imagined. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the Select Committee's proposals to exercise flexibility, especially in relation to the deadline for notifications under the storm damage recovery scheme.
We accept that such storms are rare. However, there is evidence from eminent scientists that the way in which we are treating our natural environment could result in many more natural disasters. Those eminent scientists are saying that the greenhouse effect could result in more climatic changes that will lead to more hurricanes, floods and

droughts. Dr. Karas and Dr. Kelly of the climatic research unit of the university of East Anglia are working on a thesis and they expect proof within the next few years of whether the increase in the global temperature will surpass natural variations. On three occasions during this decade alone that has happened. They claim that one result could be more natural disasters.
We must spend more time considering how we cope with natural disasters. The House is right to question the Government about whether they have learnt from the experiences of the storm or from those of Chernobyl. They have manifestly not learnt the lessons of Chernobyl, and I am sceptical about whether they have fully learnt the lessons of the storm.
I associate myself and the Labour party with the concluding sentence of the Select Committee report, which says:
A more thorough and long term Government strategy, particularly financial, but advisory as well, is now needed.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) give such warm-hearted and generous support to the Select Committee report. His concluding remarks rightly drew attention to the lessons that need to be learnt, particularly given the possibility of climatic changes. However, whether there are climatic changes or not, there is a need to develop a more comprehensive strategy to deal with natural disasters.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the other members of the Committee on producing a report that is thorough, comprehensive and objective. Its conclusions bear no hint of a political compromise in an effort to present a united front. Sometimes Select Committees pull their punches to present a united front, but on this occasion there was no need for the Committee to approach the matter on a political basis because the report is not concerned with political theory or party politics. It is a fact-finding report and it is a pity that we do not have much of the evidence to support the report. Fortunately, I have some of the evidence with me and I know the people who presented some of it. However, it would have helped the House to have that evidence.
I have no doubt that the Committee has produced a thoroughly good fact-finding report about the physical impact of the hurricane which swept through the south-east on the night of 16 October. It was the most ferocious hurricane for 285 years.
I have no doubt that the report tells the truth, because I was present on the night and I saw the storm's devastating effects the following morning. I have spoken to many people who suffered the most grievous damage to their farms, woodlands and houses. Therefore, there is nothing that I can or wish to say that would embellish or seek to exaggerate the effects of the hurricane on a county that was in the path of the storm and which bore the full brunt of it. Its countryside is the most heavily wooded in England.
Largely because the storm struck at about 4 am, there was no loss of life. I dread to think what would have happened if it had arrived earlier when people were about. Communications broke down. I know that this matter was not dealt with at length in the report, but it is part and parcel of the lessons that we should learn to help us to


develop a strategy. There was a catastrophic lack of communication, and had there been loss of life it would have had serious effects on our ability to deliver suitable aid.
I said that there was no loss of life, but that is not quite true. While reconnecting the essential electricity services, which was often a hazardous operation, two men lost their lives—Ian Rice of the Merseyside and North Wales electricity board and Gordon Marsh of the East Midlands electricity board. I am sure that the House would like to express its deepest sympathy to their families. They, and other electricity board employees, did a sterling job. They responded quickly and came front all over the country to help. British Telecom managed to obtain aid from elsewhere to help it to carry out its very complicated job.
I am sure that all hon. Members will endorse wholeheartedly the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare in the report, that the public authorities and the Government played their part as best they could, bearing in mind the suddenness of the onslaught and the fact that communications had broken down.
Before I deal with the measures recommended, and which have been taken to help farmers, the orchards and woodlands, I should like to say a few words about the cost facing East Sussex county council. The report says in paragraphs 23 and 24 that the Government have not honoured their pledge not to make a profit out of the clawback arrangements operating under the rate support grant formula. The hon. Member for South Shields spoke of that.
We have been very fussed about it in East Sussex. My understanding, having met the leader of the county council who has been persistently pursuing the matter, and having met Ministers, is that the Government are not making a profit out of this heavy disaster. To that extent, the Government have been as good as their word. But there remains the vexatious problem of the closing date for eligibility for financial assistance. The date was originally the end of January and it has been extended until the end of February. In no way could East Sussex put in its bid to meet such a deadline. The scale of the damage precluded it from doing so.
There is not time for me to give details of the damage, but it has been costed at about £5 million for East Sussex. Fifteen schools were wholly or partly closed, and more than 500 pupils are still away from their usual schools. Repairs were needed to roads, footpaths, and street lights, of which 4,000 were damaged, and 2·8 million trees were lost in the county. I could go on.
The damage caused by the storm in the county of East Sussex cost about £5 million, compared to £2 million for West Sussex, £500,000 for Surrey, and £4·5 million for Kent. There is little doubt that even in a town like Brighton there is much work still to be done, although it did not bear the brunt of the storm damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has asked me to make that point on his behalf.
The scale of damage to many schools means that the cost of transporting pupils and hiring temporary accommodation, will continue through the summer term. Work to reinstate all highways, embankments and footpaths will take even longer. None of that cost could have been known to the county or the Government at the outset. In my judgment, it is vital to change the time scale for financial assistance.
I move on to the rural scene generally. There, too, the question of time scale for financial assistance applies. Under the storm damage recovery scheme, the closing date for notification is later, on 31 March this year. The report rightly focuses attention on the costs of clearing up the damage caused to hedges, trees and farm buildings and emphasises the need for help.
The Agriculture Committee was told by almost all the witnesses that the amount of work to be done had been severely underestimated. The Committee reported that officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seemed to rely rather lukewarmly on the farm and countryside initiative, which the Committee did not regard as a necessarily adequate response. I went to some meetings of the East Sussex National Farmers Union, and its members did not regard it as very adequate. No doubt, ground has been made up since then.
I know from my own experience how difficult the problem is. I have two fields, one of which is 4 acres, but there are 12 trees across it. We shall clear them up, of course, voluntarily out of our own pocket. But the Government must recognise that it was only possible for people to move around the county to estimate damage and to start work after volunteers had cleared the damage. The report rightly recommends that the Government examine their policy of minimal support for clearance in the wholly exceptional circumstances following the storm.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture rightly recognised this fact in a letter to me on 24 February. He said:
Extra harvesting capacity has already moved into the area, but it has to be recognised that the scale of the windblow was such that it is likely to take years, not months, to clear all the fallen trees. I know that the Forestry Commission is doing its best to see that priority is given to clearing those species—pine and beech—which will begin to deteriorate if they are not lifted quickly.
The Minister added:
I am very conscious of the problems that many woodland owners have to face, and I do see how real has been the devastation in respect of your constituency.
How right he was.
The report is correct to recommend that the Government should re-examine their policy of a minimal approach, but they need to do more. For the owners of commercial and non-commercial woodlands, the scene is a physical tragedy and a financial disaster. Their priority is not so much payment for replanting, about which we have heard a great deal, as money and labour to clear up the mess. Again, the report rightly recognises this difficulty. It says:
On our tour of Sussex we could see the problems of getting into the centre or thick of woods which have become virtually impenetrable because of fallen trees.
That was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his letter to me.
The practical difficulties of clearance are immense. In my judgment, the variety of tasks that must be undertaken by woodland owners could not have been foreseen by those in London. For instance, the Ashdown forest, which is in my constituency, is not run for commercial use. The conservators who are responsible for its maintenance have special obligations to preserve the ecology of the forest.
In their judgment, if they are to do that job properly, it will take two or three years. 'The financial implications of that decision, as the clerk and forest superintendent said to me, are that expenditure on clearing up after the storm


will be spread over three years and cannot be spent in the next few months to take advantage of possible Government grants.
The Minister must address himself to that practical point, and if he cannot do so tonight I hope that it will be dealt with later. In the Ashdown forest, an area of outstanding natural beauty which is especially preserved, the conservators cannot do the job of clearance unless they are given more time. It is ludicrous that the time scale is to be so short that they are effectively forbidden from doing so.
For the owners of large commercial woodlands who have run their woods for decades as commercial enterprises, the task is every bit as difficult. I should like to quote from a letter sent to me by an owner.
No one will be applying for grants to replace fences, shelter belts, woodlands, anything, if we do not clear the timber that is on the ground.
He goes on to say that that would cost about £1,500 an acre, and that the estimated cost for his estate is £1·4 million, which he says
is clearly beyond my pocket.
He goes on to say that there is a time element relating to cleaning softwoods:
We are in the middle of a wet winter and there will be a fairly short window between the end of the wet weather and the brambles taking over by which time we need to have got our access roads for timber tug … built.
He asks whether it is possible for the Minister to give a grant at least towards that and adds:
At the moment our rights of way are closed because of the danger from fallen timber, some of which is fairly precariously balanced. We would undertake to reopen all the rights of way within, let us say, nine months if we could get some assistance to do so and use the money also to give us the sort of access that we have to have.
He is not the only one who has drawn my attention to the difficulties of getting access to the hinterland of their woodlands.
I understand that the Government are not prepared to consider this a disaster zone because of the possible repercussions. Nor are they prepared at the moment to consider giving assistance where there was an insurable risk. The firm of Dolwin and Gray, which gave evidence to the Select Committee, manages about 3,500 acres of woodland in the south-east. It estimates that 95 per cent. of woodland owners were not covered for storm damage to mature hardwoods.
Why should they be? Was their judgment so wrong and were they so short-sighted, bearing in mind that the previous hurricane took place 285 years ago? Or could it be that the rates and conditions of insurance are ludicrously impractical? A woodland owner who is a constituent of mine inquired a few years ago about insurance. He was told that it was available, at a price. The only thing that he could insure against and would be paid out on was a tree that was completely destroyed—not a tree that had been badly damaged and would no longer grow or was leaning at 15 degrees. It would have to be totally destroyed.
It is little wonder, bearing in mind the climatic conditions, that in such circumstances people do not think it worthwhile insuring on a vast scale. The Government claim that they do not give assistance where there is an insurable risk, but they gave transport assistance following the 1968 storms in Scotland. Why, therefore, have they so

far refused to do so in 1988? I ask the Government for their estimate of the cost of a reasonable insurance policy when dealing with woodlands such as I have described. Do they consider it commercially rational to insure against freak hurricanes of a kind which we last experienced in the south-east in 1703?
There is another point on the extension of time. Did the Government feel that they should not extend the time because people would sit on their backsides and not do anything or invent claims? Did the Government think that people would make false claims if they were insured or, if they were not insured, that they would gang up together against the Government? Anyone should know how difficult it is following a hurricane to work out exactly what needs to be done and how much it will cost. Certainly people were not helped by the wet weather which followed.
Timber Growers United Kingdom Ltd. and the Sussex branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England agree on the need for special action. I suspect that many of those people do not have a direct axe to grind and should know the nature of the problem. The Forestry Commission, through its forest windblow action committee — we are masters of the under-statement, but windblow is a real masterpiece—has recommended that a restoration supplement should be paid in addition to standard grants. Because the trees were blown down, owners are under no legal obligation to replant. Those who cannot afford to do so will not undertake the work of clearance and replanting.
Bearing in mind some of the whispers about taxation policy in respect of woodlands, and given the high cost of clearance, I wonder whether the Government believe that the timber growers organisation is right when it recommends that the schedule D taxpayer should be allowed to carry forward losses over five years, as restoration will have to take place over a prolonged period. In any case, as the organisation says,
any changes in the tax structure which prevent owners setting off costs against income will make the task of restoration practically impossible.
As the Country Landowners Association rightly points out, these are not all big landowners who own vast forests; many of them own small woodlands and have modest resources. I have little doubt that the tax regime needs to be benevolent if we are to get done the job which is so essential.
There are many other matters which one could raise, but other hon. Members want to take part in the debate. There are many activities whose needs have not been adequately met. There should be a fresh look at the glasshouse sector. The NFU is right to point out that some of the inequities and complications of the glasshouse package could have been avoided if there had been a special storm recovery scheme similar to that introduced in the orchard sector. The NFU was also right to point out that the omission of plastic structures and their products from assistance is very short sighted.
In his eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the value that we attach to the beauty of our countryside. One feature on which we pride ourselves is our farm architectural heritage. Old farm buildings are not always suited to modern agricultural requirements, but they are still used for farming purposes. To try to insure a 17th or 16th-century building is prohibitive and many of them suffered grievously. If we want to preserve our architectural heritage, surely such


buildings should be eligible for special help as listed buildings under the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962.
Those are some of the comments and opinions which have been put to me and which I hope I have reflected adequately. I believe them to be based not on special pleading or on the begging bowl philosophy but on basic need. I agree with the Select Committee that the Government are to be commended for their swift response, but with all the benefit of hindsight we can see, with the help of the report, that the scale of the problem has underestimated by the Government. I therefore urge them to take the necessary further remedial action.

Mr. Geraint Howells: May I remind the House that in 1948, 40 years ago, hon. Members agreed unanimously to set up a disaster fund after the snowstorm of 1947, which was one of the worst in the history of the country? I was at home on the farm in those days, and we were cut off for seven full weeks. All the villages in Wales were under severe strain and we could not get food into the local communities.
The disaster fund of 1948 was similar to the fund that has been requested by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the other members of the Select Committee in their plea to the Government. In 1947, it was sheep that were important. In 1987, it was trees. The disaster fund of 1948 safeguarded the future of many small farmers in Wales and other parts of the country and enabled them to keep farming going for many generations. Many of us who were on the land in those days are indebted to the Government of the day for securing the future of many viable units which were under financial strain because of the storm.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and his colleagues, who worked very hard in the Select Committee on Agriculture to try to persuade the Government to give financial aid to the unfortunate people who lost many of their assets, which often comprised trees. We cannot blame the Government or the Opposition for what happened. When a storm of such magnitude hits a country, there is very little that any of us can do. I travelled through Hyde park the following week, and all the trees that were down were a sight that I will never forget.
I believe that the Government, in their wisdom, will consider again the recommendations of the Select Committee. I shall not try to cover all the ground that has already been dealt with by other hon. Members. I have here the Committee's 16 recommendations, but I shall refer only to the eight that need top priority. The first recommendation is
that the measures for greater flexibility under the Agricultural Improvement Scheme should achieve the objective of relief to farmers with improvement plans.
I am in favour of that.
The most important recommendation is No. 3:
we conclude that it is now quite clear that the overall allocation, just over £1 million, is still entirely inadequate. It should be urgently revised.
That recommendation should take precedence over all the others. In 1948 the Government reviewed the position and gave an extra sum of money. I believe that the Government will do the same today.
Recommendation No. 4 is also very important, as is recommendation No. 5, that
the Minister looks again at possibilities of greater support for an important sector of the horticultural industry while its producers attempt to re-establish their businesses in the face of constant and fierce foreign competition.
Recommendation No. 9 should also be noted. Recommendation No. 11 deals with the clearance problem that will face many farmers who have big trees on their farms. Recommendation No. 13 is very important, and it has been suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government should consider it. Hon. Members have also referred to recommendation No. 16:
A more thorough and long-term Government strategy, particularly financial, but advisory as well, is now needed.
I have always held the view that the Government should have a contingency fund at the ready to help when disaster hits our forests, farms or ports. We are a very wealthy nation and we should have funds ready to safeguard the interests of those less fortunate than ourselves when a storm hits. I hope that the Government will consider the pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House, because those who were unfortunate in the storm badly need help.

Sir Peter Hordern: I add my congratulations to those expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his Committee's report. The report was commendably brief, following a thorough examination carried out very swiftly. This is our first opportunity to debate the matter fully, so I thank the Leader of the House for making it available to us.
On the morning following the night of 16 October, there was a scene of devastation in West Sussex and the other constituencies in the south-east affected by the hurricane. The storm was a complete catastrophe, which affected not only woodland owners. It had an almost universal effect on trees in the grounds of large and small houses throughout the counties of Sussex and Kent, and further afield. It was a catastrophe whose effects will be felt for many years to come. We talk about compensation, but there can be no financial compensation sufficient to repair the damage caused by the storm. Even when the trees have been replanted it will be many years before they reach anything like their previous stature.
When I say that the face of West Sussex was changed completely, I mean it. Some old familiar landmarks, such as Chanctonbury Ring, will take many years to restore to their former glory. The storm was not just a local but a national tragedy. Like my hon. Friends I congratulate the public authorities — especially Seeboard and British Telecom — on their wonderful work in repairing the damage and restoring normality so quickly.
We should be aware that the damage affected not only woodland owners, but small householders—a topic not mentioned in the report. I was struck by the number of letters that I received from pensioners who had been charged up to £2,000 to have one or two large trees removed from their gardens. Cowboys charged elderly people with no means of payment colossal sums at that time. Therefore, while we talk about relieving the anxiety of woodland owners with large acreages of woodland, we must bear in mind the real privations suffered by small householders. I remind the House that they had no choice


in the matter. They had to remove the trees very quickly, whereas a woodland owner could at least choose how and when to have them removed.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what will be the loss of grant, if any, to county authorities. I have it in writing from the county treasurer that
For West Sussex our £8·5 million will generate an estimated £4 million of net additional grant. There is no question of central government making a profit out of our storm damage expenditure.
That comes from an authority that has not always been very pleased with the Government. My hon. Friends and I have been known to vote against the Government on the rate support grant settlements—for very good reasons. We are not in the habit of congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister, but West Sussex appears to have nothing to complain of in this respect. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on their speedy response to our representations.
We should be aware of the full cost of implementing the recommendations in the report. I do not suppose that it is possible to estimate exactly how much that will be—unless the Government can make an informed guess—but I should think that it would be a substantial sum. Before agreeing that large sums should be given to forest, woodland and landowners, we should consider the effect of such grants on the many small householders who suffered commensurate hardship as a result of the storm. I should not like to think that the Government favoured large landowners at the expense of small householders whose properties suffered damage.
Many large woodland owners plant trees as a form of investment. I recognise the hardship that they suffered, but many people with other forms of investment suffered greatly as a result of black Monday last year, and they are not asking for or expecting compensation. I have met many large landowners in my constituency and, to my knowledge, they are not asking for extra special help. They recognise that theirs is private land in which they have made a substantial investment and they do not blame the Government for what has happened. The only request that I would make is that, with large woodland areas open to the public, such as Chanctonbury Ring, there is a strong case for granting assistance to repair the ravages of the storm so that people can continue to enjoy the woodlands.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not only consider sympathetically the plight of large landowners—I hope that those with properties and woodlands open to the public will receive some assistance—but will bear in mind the plight of small householders and woodland owners who have asked for no compensation at all.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am essentially a townie boy and I have very little knowledge of the farming community, although I enjoy the countryside from time to time and I should like to express my great sympathy for those in horticulture and farming who suffered a loss of livelihood as a result of what was described as the hurricane of 16 October. It was, indeed, a devastating storm and although I understand that it fell just short of a hurricane in ferocity, it was nevertheless a phenomenon that we hope we shall not see again in our lifetime.
I recall that I toured my constituency because I was extremely worried about the extent of the damage and the possibility of injury. I agree with the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who described it as nothing short of a miracle that no one was killed. People would certainly have died if it had happened at another time of day, but many people were in bed, and sound sleepers were quite unaware of what was happening in the early hours of the morning. People just thought that the wind was getting up a bit. But it was indeed devastating and something we hope not to see again. I hope that the Government, in looking at this excellent Select Committee report, will not be all that worried if they have to arrange with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a more generous attitude. It is not something that is likely to recur every year; that possibility is quite remote.
I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his excellent report, to which the Government should pay very close attention. I checked with the hard-pressed London borough of Ealing, which has just been rate-capped by the Ministers concerned—quite unjustly and unfairly, I think. It should not have to shoulder almost the entire burden of all the activity that resulted from the storm.
I entirely support paragraph 24, which reads:
We entirely reject that decision by the Secretary of State. We urge him to reconsider his policy on the Bellwin Scheme in the light of the evidence we had which shows that its effects on financing emergency work by local authorities are quite unacceptable.
I feel that, despite party political differences in other directions, that view would be reflected in almost every local authority.
Given the locality of my constituency, I particularly endorse paragraph 29 of the report, which states:
We put on record our commendation of all those in various government departments, local authorities, the electricity boards, the army, police and various private organisations who acted so promptly and so efficiently in the immediate aftermath of the storm.
I recall from where I live a tree which had fallen across three houses. It was a miracle that it did not fall the other way and destroy roofs and possibly take the lives of a number of people. I saw the effects, and it is truly a miracle that the effect on human life was much less than it might have been.
Had the storm occurred at 4 O'clock in the afternoon, I am sure the story would have been different, because in numerous places the roads would have been cluttered up with traffic and many people would have suffered as a consequence. I recall that on the route that I take to this place every day there was concern about falling branches or timber, so lanes were shut off in the interests of safety.
I conclude with this thought about the matter, which is proficiently dealt with in the report and which calls for a proper reply today. There should be proper consideration of the mean attitude taken by central Government. We are coming near to the time of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech—a long-winded speech, I may say—and one hopes he will be able to include in it some reference to the hurricane disaster and what he suggests might be done financially to assist those who have been so severely affected and those local authorities that could do with a hit of a handout—particularly the London borough of Ealing.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I follow others in paying a hearty tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for compiling an impressive and compelling report for the House. Mine was one of those constituencies most badly affected by the great storm on 16 October. Its impact was immediately apparent, though only to those in the locality, for much of the area was cut off and unapproachable.
My own home, which is just outside Midhurst, in the middle of my constituency, was typical of the communities that could not be approached by any road because of the fallen woodlands surrounding it. There was hardly a family or household in the whole district that was not affected in one way or another by the disaster.
There was among the people there, as is often the case after a disaster, a feeling that they wanted to tell others what had happened. It was not so much that they wanted immediate relief; they wanted others to listen, and to tell them of their own experiences. Indeed, I found that one of the traits amongst my constituents was the remarkably public-spirited way in which many of them—with the Dunkirk spirit—immediately took up chainsaws and helped to clear public roads as well as their own land, and went to the assistance of the elderly in the community who were not fully able to look after themselves to ensure that their lifelines were open.
In the ensuing period, which lasted many weeks in some cases, when there was no lighting, electricity or fuel available to many houses, particularly in the northern part of my district, there was a stoic attitude among many of my constituents which should be recorded during this debate.
Like many other Members of Parliament in the areas affected, I made it my business to try to see for myself the impact of the damage. My constituency, which comprises a very large agricultural district, reflected a wide range of damage. There was damage to virtually every household in Chichester and the other major towns of Selsey, Southwater, Midhurst and Petworth in the form of missing roof tiles and fallen trees. In many cases there were personal and sometimes tragic injuries.
There was also agricultural and horticultural devastation in particular. In horticulture, dairy farmers were unable to have their herds milked adequately and promptly. There was also the problem, well publicised, in horticulture of having to clear away large amounts of broken glass and losing the crop being grown at the time. That caused serious cash-flow difficulties, as well as personal problems in getting the work done.
It was not simply agriculture and horticulture that suffered. Many commercial businesses suffered because of the breakdown in communications and people's inability to get to work for a long time. The environment also suffered — not just the natural environment but the architecture and heritage of ancient Roman cities such as Chichester, with their Georgian image of the present time, and also the great estates and fine houses. Although they are not typical of those occupied by the majority of my constituents, they are a national treasure and a feature that people from throughout the country enjoy. Great homes such as Petworth house and Goodwood house, which have large woodland estates, suffered enormous damage—as did Westdean and the estate on which I live, which is Lord Cowdray's estate at Midhurst.
I pay tribute to many of those estates and estate workers who worked then, who continue to work, and who will have to do so for many years, to clear the enormous damage, which I believe was never sufficiently recognised nationally at the time. Indeed, because many areas were so unapproachable, many people did riot appreciate the extent of the devastation.
For all those reasons, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and our hon. Friends on the Select Committee undertook their visit, it was very welcome. I took the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend, before and after, about his visit. Pictures of him, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and others appeared in all the local press and on television, and I can tell them now, as I have said since, that their visit was very much appreciated in my constituency and elsewhere. It showed that our problems were being taken seriously, were being understood and were being given a sympathetic ear by the House.
When later I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and other colleagues from west Sussex to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to gain assurances that the Treasury would not make a profit and that we would not lose out in terms of rate support grant from any financial assistance, I was encouraged by governmental, as well as by parliamentary, response to believe that our problems were receiving more serious consideration and understanding than I felt they were in the immediate aftermath of the crisis.
Therefore, I join others in broadly welcoming the Government's response and their sympathetic ear to the problems that have been discussed. I still feel that there is an element of Catch 22 for many constituents and sectors adversely affected by the crisis. Many of my constituents were told, when I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately after the storm, that, for understandable reasons, the Government would not consider subventing or paving for damage which was insurable. One understands the reasons for that, but when one looks at the damage that is not insurable one finds that in many instances it is not eligible, and could not be eligible, for Government support or local authority recompense.
When the glass falls down in a newly-built glasshouse the large cost of clearing that glass, which is time-consuming, is not covered by insurance, even though replacement of the glass may be. Similarly, as many growers have told me—this is just one example—when a glasshouse which is, say, 12 or 13 years old collapses, the insurance company will pay only for the insurable cost of that, bearing in mind the age of the glass. Yet the grower is faced with replacing that glass at the modern-day cost. Very few insurance policies, even for those who have sought to cover such liabilities, cover the cost of reconstruction.
Happily, the financial state of horticulture is a good deal sounder today than it was a few years ago. I welcome that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), who is a neighbour of mine. He cannot be here today, but he has asked me to associate him with my remarks. Two weeks ago we visited, with the West Sussex Growers Association, some of the glasshouse industry in the area which had been devastated by the storm, and which still shows serious signs of that damage. It will take time and money to recover from that, but the Select


Committee's report has gone some way to drawing to the Government's attention what can reasonably be done to alleviate the problems.
The only other aspect that I want to mention is the ingenious and positive suggestion of the transport subsidy on trees. I welcome that recommendation, despite all its problems. I can see why there may well be reluctance to use public funds to transport wood from one end of the country to the other, perhaps to sell it at a different price. I can see why that might not appeal to a free market approach, but the fact is that we have a serious tragedy on our hands in my corner of Britain, and just as other parts of Britain would look to us to play our part and be sympathetic and constructive were a natural disaster to strike them, so I say that that proposal should be given a fair wind.
I hope that the Government will seriously consider spending what I think will be a relatively small amount of money, but which will go a long way towards assisting the viability of many of the concerns and ensuring that there is tree clearance, so that many of the woods, particularly the pine woods, do not rot more than is necessary and so that some order is brought to a market where there has already been a massive collapse in prices in the south. That is in nobody's interests and we can take some action in the short term at relatively minor cost which will have long-term benefits.
For all those reasons, the House has been done a service by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the Select Committee, and I look forward, with my hon. Friends, to hearing the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Martyn Jones: As a member of the Select Committee, I endorse the findings of the report, but I want to stress several aspects.
We learned that 87 local authorities consider themselves significantly affected, and although it is difficult, for all sorts of valid reasons, to estimate the total cost to those authorities, it is expected to be in excess of £98 million.
It is typical of the Government that what they give with one hand they take away with the other. Their special grant of £18·3 million will be reduced to £8·5 million. The disparity between the effects on counties obviously depends on how near such authorities are to their grant-related expenditure ceiling.
The £1 million for hedges and shelter belts will, as the Minister said he intended, have to be flexible, but it will have to be flexible upwards since the estimate of damage will be finalised only on a time scale of years, not months, as areas become open to examination.
A transport subsidy is the largest omission from the Government's reaction to the disaster. There is no sense in providing a replanting subsidy to commercial fruit growers, whether insured or not, yet leaving hop growers, soft fruit growers and vineyard owners to fend for themselves.
I hope that efforts will be made to direct replanting in such a way as to preserve the environment and the ecology of the areas affected in the long term.
I endorse the commendations of the public services, especially the electricity boards. I strongly suspect that,

had they been broken down into competing private companies with different equipment and employment priorities, they could not have reacted in such a coordinated and publicly useful way.

Mr. Roger Moate: I understand that the hon. Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is an expert on the brewing industry, so I am glad that he took the opportunity, as I would have expected, to mention the position of hop growers. That gives me the chance to mention the specific problem affecting, not a large number of people, but a number of hop growers and soft fruit growers, who, inexplicably, in terms of all equity, have been excluded from assistance. The amount is not great, but the principle is considerable, and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will say that there is some scope for making the scheme more flexible in order to help people such as the hop growers and soft fruit growers who have been hit. They are not many, but the position is serious for them.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the work of the electricity boards. I repeat what has been said, because the compliments are not empty ones. The work done by many of the emergency services and organisations was stupendous. Some of the woodland areas were devastated, with telegraph poles and trees entangled, with lines down for miles and villages totally isolated, and the work of the telephone companies and electricity boards in particular was stupendous. I suspect that we all saw the pictures of the Gurkhas cutting their way through some of the undergrowth. In many ways, that symbolises the work done by the defence authorities, the police, local authorities and others in a short time. We are grateful for and proud of their work.
An immense amount of voluntary work was also undertaken at that time. Because the farmers had the heavier equipment and the cutting equipment, it was often they who came out to clear the roads. They have not asked for payment for that. If they get some, I shall be delighted, but, generally speaking, it was in a spirit of voluntary enterprise that the farming community cleared the roads and gained access to areas that were otherwise cut off.
Let us pay tribute to all those who did so much, particularly during the weekend after the catastrophe and the weeks that followed. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said. He stressed that the farmers are not asking for very much. He referred to the estate owners. Very few estate owners are demanding total compensation for the damage that they sustained. In view of the total estimate of damage of £1 billion, it is clear that the amount that is being offered by the Government, or asked for on top of the amount from the Government, is very small indeed.
The orchard growers in my constituency welcome the £2 a tree scheme, but, even if they receive that, many of them face immense losses which they are taking on the chin. They do not expect to receive payment for barns that in effect were uninsurable because of their structure. They do not expect to get very much payment for clearance and other work. They do not expect compensation for the loss of income that they will sustain for many years to come.
We are grateful to the Government for what they have done. Equally, we must recognise that the industry, individual private householders, estate owners and land-owners will carry immense losses for many years to come.


I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) say that he had toured the area and had been shaken. If one lives in one part of the country, it is easy, when a national disaster occurs in a different part of the country, to he oblivious to it. It was shattering and devastating and the damage it has done will leave scars on the countryside for decades to come. Unless one saw and experienced it, one could not know how great was its scale.
However, the damage could have been so much worse. That is hard to believe, when one sees woodlands shattered and devastated and one cannot get access to hundreds of acres of woodlands, and one does not know how to clear it because the cost of clearing could be hundreds of thousands of pounds. Had the storms continued for another day or two, many trees that were weakened but still standing would have been flattened, and many more buildings would have been flattened. Had the storm occurred when there were standing crops across a larger area of the country, we would have been measuring the costs not in terms of the report, but in terms of billions of pounds more of uninsured and insurable losses.
It worries me that our response to disasters is always ad hoc. In my years as a Member of Parliament, in my constituency we have had major flooding and major snow damage on a national disaster scale, and we have now had the hurricane. Every time, it comes as a surprise. It will come as a surprise next time and after a month, two months or three months of consideration, the Government will offer some modest assistance. However, the time could come when the damage and the loss go beyond that. It worries me that we never seem to have thought about how we could cope. Geologists and seismologists say that we cannot have earthquakes in Britain. I hope that they are right, but how would our great insurance companies cope with a national disaster that inflicted billions of pounds worth of damage?
I particularly welcome the report and the opportunity to debate it today because it gives us a chance to say to the Government that we do not know whether a disaster fund is the right way to handle it, but surely the Government should he doing a great deal of thinking about how to react to major disasters and not always be taken by surprise. We are grateful to the Government for their response, but I have to say that a tremendous amount of debate between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Treasury was generated before we got what we were offered. If there were such a debate on a disaster of that scale, how much longer would it take if the damage was on a totally national scale, or on a more serious level?
I urge the Government to take up the point in the report about the need for a proper structured response and to follow one of the conclusions in the report, recommendation 30, which states:
A more thorough and long-term Government strategy, particularly financial but advisory as well, is now needed.
That is fundamental. Let us please take it on board.
Another more modest point is the need for flexibility. I support absolutely the point made in the report about the need for a more flexible approach to the grant already on offer. The Government would spoil what they are doing if they maintained the 31 March cut-off date. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will say that that deadline will not be applied.
I ask the Government to provide total flexibility in the administration of this scheme. Let us extend it, if we can, to certain growers who are currently excluded in the

horticulture industry, which is a very precarious and tough business with very small margins. Let us make it more flexible. Above all, will the Government devise a long-term strategy for responding to such disasters?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: As a Kentish Member who slept through the eye of the storm until half my roof blew off, I can say that that experience at my home and further afield was indeed traumatic. In my constituency, which was in the main path of the storm, some of the most beautiful woodland in south-east England has been reduced to aspects of a lumber yard. Many ancient barns in our farming community were completely destroyed and blown away. The horticultural industry has seen far too many hundreds of trees uprooted and pushed aside with an immense amount of work involved for people on those farms to replace the trees even if they had not had to bulldoze the trees completely away and start afresh.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the staff of Kent county council and its sub-contractor, Gravesham borough council, for their sterling work in overcoming the problems of dangerous structures and leaning trees which were causing danger to the public. I should like to include in that tribute the work force in the electricity industry and in British Telecom, who worked around the clock to restore public services to our part of Kent.
I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) because he put his finger on a major problem. Relatively modest householders who had large trees in small gardens suddenly, literally overnight, found themselves with an urgent and very expensive problem in dealing with those large trees. The cowboys certainly were at work, and many of my constituents had to pay over the odds to bring safety to their homes by the removal of such trees. I should like to refer to one particular example.
In my constituency there is a development known as Vigo village which consists of 786 houses built during the past 20 years literally in the middle of a wood. In the height of summer it is a beautiful place to live and in the winter it is bleak, dark and shadowy. In that storm, more than 20 per cent. of the trees were made unstable. That must have been a very frightening experience. The village was developed in such way that there are many walkways and communal lands throughout the development of housing which were not conveyed to individual householders. They were conveyed to a newly established organisation, the Vigo village trust. Every householder pays £25 a year towards the maintenance of the wooded area and the walkways.
However they did not, and could not, provide for the fact that more than 20 per cent. of those trees would become unstable and need to be felled and cleared away, apart from the trees from the communal areas of the trust that were leaning on the houses. It has been calculated that the cost of removing the trees and making them safe amounts to £20,000.
The householders have already spent £4,000 on making the trees safe, and they have an immense way to go. However, no cash is forthcoming from the public authorities to assist in that task. While I note that the Government are providing not ungenerous support of 75 per cent. of costs to local government, subject to the 1p rate proviso, is it not rather straightlaced for that kind of


support not to be available to other corporate bodies that represent the community at large such as the Vigo village trust? At the end of the day, the borough and county councils represent and serve the people in a particular area. Exactly the same function and service is provided by trusts like the Vigo village trust. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point to discover whether organisations like the Vigo village trust can be given assistance with this exceptional problem.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the welling up of public spirit brought about by the tragedy. Like other hon. Members, I travelled around my constituency to discover what could and was being done. I was very impressed to see groups of people voluntarily using chain saws and the like, making dangerous trees and dangerous structures safe and opening up the roads in support of the public authorities. We should commend those people on their work and be aware that public spirit has not been lost in our communities.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I begin by saying how much I enjoyed serving as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture. As a Back Bencher, it felt good to be seen to be doing something useful rather than simply participating in sterile debates.
I speak for my Labour party colleagues when I say that we did not approach this matter in a political way. We did not intend to ambush the Government. In fact, we produced a unanimous report. We praised the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when that was necessary, but we were critical of the Government on occasions. More than that, we pointed the way to the future. We recommended what should happen instead of concentrating on what had gone wrong. That was a useful approach and I hope that it will continue to be the approach in Select Committees, especially in the Select Committee on Agriculture.
Paragraph 28 of the Select Committee report states that the
£2·7 million was planned for replanting in the current financial year only.
We included that to emphasise that the Government seemed to concentrate their minds on the following year only when they were questioned. If we had not raised the issue, the £2·7 million or the grant for next year would not have been considered. That was certainly an achievement on our part.
More important, we explain in paragraph 19 that an immediate decision should be taken about the transport grant. It is essential that we discover very soon how much will be available to transport trees from the storm-damage areas to the sawmills in the midlands, Wales, Cumbria and Scotland. If we do not transport those trees at one end of the country, they will rot, be attacked by pests or become stained there, while the other end of the country will be importing timber—and we are all aware of the current balance of payments position. In fact, trees will be cut down at the other end of the country unnecessarily. That would be a terrible waste. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will agree to the transport grant.
I realise that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will be brief. I believe that the Government have

underestimated the problem that was created last October. Therefore, they have underestimated the funds that will be necessary to put matters right.

Mr. Tim Boswell: As I am probably the last member of the Select Committee on Agriculture to be called to speak today, I want to thank the House for the courtesy that it has shown to the report and the kind of comments that have been made about it. If it is not invidious, I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for his leadership of the Committee and also mention our Clerk, Malcolm Jack, who served the Committee well and helped us to produce the report. He is due to carry out other business in the House. I also want to mention those who arranged for the early publication of the report, albeit without its voluminous appendices, which has allowed us to have an early debate in what must be record time. That is entirely appropriate in view of the urgency of the situation.
When we visited areas south of the Thames, I was struck by two particular points. Little comment has been made about the first. I was struck by the extremely capricious nature of the storm. I live only a county and a a bit away from the areas most severely affected by the storm's impact, yet the problems that I experienced were typical only of a normal severe storm. The position in the south-east was diabolical, awful and "shocking"—the word that we all used to describe the scenes.
There was no uniform effect in the south-east. In what had been a row of trees, half were standing and the other half had been felled. One glasshouse might have been demolished and three left standing, and the wind might have taken another one out on the other side of the nursery garden. Those effects are extraordinary and extremely difficult to assess, compute and calculate for loss.
My second point is more familiar. In a sense, the storm was unprecedented. With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), we do not know when the next storm will occur, but we know that it is nearly 300 years since a storm on this scale hit this part of the country. That has major implications for what private citizens and the Government can do to meet almost unforeseen contingencies.
It is not a common practice for Conservative Members to argue for the expenditure of more public money, but there is a contingency fund. What is the point of a public contingency reserve unless it is used for contingencies of this kind? I have great sympathy with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and it is distressing that when the need to approach the contingency occurs the matter must be picked over with the Treasury, item by item, before appropriate measures are taken. That may be the way of the world, but we must address that matter and improve the procedure.
In making my case that the scale of the disaster overwhelmed our provisions, I am in no sense attacking the emergency provisions of the public authorities. Indeed, the Committee made no such attack. Those emergency provisions were most commendable, and appropriate reference has been made to them today. I want to add to that the evidence that we received about the work carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, local authorities and public utilities. In particular, I want to state that the


Forestry Commission set to work straight away and established the windblow action group. All those measures were businesslike and brisk and intended to deal with an unprecedented situation.
There are four things that could not have been foreseen and can be dealt with only after the event. First, I want to consider the impact on glasshouses, and reference has already been made to this. No prudent nurseryman could have insured to cover, not simply the replacement cost of glass today, but the expected replacement cost if a significant proportion of the industry was taken out. The House may not fully appreciate that accidents and natural disasters frequently affect one or two glasshouses or growers. Indeed, we visited a site at Barnham where such problems have occurred several times recently. Storm damage on the scale that we are considering could not have been anticipated, and that damage must have had a direct effect on the market for replacement glass and the labour to replace that glass.
Secondly, I want to consider the deadline for the Ministry's storm damage recovery scheme. In particular, I am referring to the impact on orchard trees. In its evidence, the Ministry referred to the extreme difficulty of assessing the damage at this stage, and that fact has not been sufficiently highlighted. The trees are still in bud and have not come into full leaf. In some cases they may not come into full leaf because of latent damage from root disturbance or salt spray. It is extremely difficult to assess the real damage now, only three weeks before the deadline. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give us a report on the progress of applications under that scheme to date and, better still, tell us that he is prepared to lift or delay the deadline for applications?
The third matter concerns the Department of the Environment and the Bellwin rules. The Committee was privileged to meet that rare individual, the official who fully understood those rules. In the mind and experience of some local authorities there is still a residual feeling that even if they have not lost out, which they probably have, they have not received Government grant commensurate with the tremendous costs and problems that they face.
Finally, there is the issue of forestry and the Forestry Commission, which I have already commended. It gave us a most valuable contribution, as did the timber growers and private interests. I must mention, first, the age structure of trees that were blown out of the ground or whose tops were snapped off in the storms. It was evident in places such as Slindon woods of the National Trust, which we visited, that to some extent, in the parklands at least, many trees in the south-east were over-mature. To a certain extent we have killed our landscape with kindness.
I know that I would feel that the beautiful trees and fine oaks on my land, which have not yet gone completely stag-headed, let alone started dying down the centre, should be taken out in time only with the greatest reluctance—even more so if they were part of an avenue. It is an agonising decision for any landowner, public or private, to know what to do. Tree preservation orders are there in the background. We must all take this experience back and think about it again and try to obtain a better age distribution and balance in our hedgerow timber and woodland provision.
This means that the chaos of the clearance operation presents us with an opportunity. The difficulties that there will be in restocking the woods are perhaps a benefit. We

will not be able to restore them physically all in the twinkling of an eye. It will take years and decades, but perhaps there is wisdom in that. I have heard the storm described as "God's felling licence." We must think about how to restore these landscapes.
In doing so, and in calling for some public money, I stress the modest proposals made by the windblow action group. Members of the Committee felt that the group could have gone further. These are small sums compared with the scale of the damage. I remind the House of the cost of the proposal in the windblow action group report. There is a proposal for a transport subsidy to be applied over 15 months at £2·5 million, and for a restoration grant to be applied to replanting thereafter, supplementing the existing planting grant, of about £4 million—

Mr. Wiggin: Over five years.

Mr. Boswell: Over five years, as my hon. Friend reminds me. These are modest sums compared with the damage incurred. It is incumbent upon the Government at least to fund these amounts, because they would go some way towards removing the problem.
The problem remains awful. It seems awful to us on the outside: how much more so to those who live in and experience it every day? I share the opinions of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members who have mentioned the problems of small growers. Perhaps the larger greenhouse nurseymen are kitted up to meet these disasters, but many people's businesses and morale will literally have been destroyed.
There can be no criticism of the initial action of the official bodies, which was commendably prompt. However, there is a residual doubt about the ability of the Government to wheel themselves in and respond on a structured basis to these disasters with cash, without people having to fight each and every battle with the Treasury. When there is a contingency such as this, a better way should be found. The scale of the storm overtook and overwhelmed the prudent provisions made by private individuals and public authorities.
No mechanisms were in place that could cope with the disaster. The Bellwin rules are not bad in principle, but they cannot cope with a hurricane of this sort. The storm brought grievous private loss and great private grief. There is a public interest in effective clearance and recovery of the woodland areas and in learning the lessons for the future, so that in due course—it will take time—the glory of these forests and areas of beautiful countryside will be even greater than it was.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I shall be brief because I want to give the Minister time to respond to the many points made in the debate.
It might appear strange that the hon. Member from the Western Isles, the furthest north-west corner of the country, should speak about an event that occurred in the south-east corner, but there is a connection, apart from the fact that I was also a member of the Select Committee.
I wholly endorse the Committee's findings and associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the conduct of the Committee and the non-partisan way it went about its


business. I also agree with the tribute that has been paid to the guidance of the Chairman and the work of the Clerk of the Committee.
The Committee's report praised the work of the public and local authorities and all in the public services who helped to tackle the damage caused by the storm. As has been mentioned, two electricity board staff died while working to bring back power to the south-east. That shows something that we too often forget—that much dedicated, hard and sometimes dangerous work is done in the public service industries. Sometimes we focus on the more glamorous public services such as the police or the Army, but in many industries there is an undercurrent of constant danger and it is good to acknowledge that and praise the people who work in spite of it.
Although Conservative Members frequently prefer to support the notion of unfettered market forces, they have recognised here a case for public intervention and support and for positive policies by the Government to help the hard-pressed growers, horticulturists and people in the south-east who were affected by the storm. That irony was justified by referring to the major natural tragedy caused by the storm which, it was said, necessitated public support and intervention. I certainly agree with that.
On later occasions, when I rise to seek public support intervention for areas of the country that are naturally disadvantaged throughout the year rather than as a result of one storm, I hope that I will receive equal sympathy from the Conservative Benches. What happened in the south-east of England on one night was a concentrated form of the natural disadvantages that are suffered in other areas throughout the year, especially in my constituency and the rest of the Highlands and Islands.
Although it may have appeared strange for me to contribute to this debate, given my geographical origin, I hope that Conservative Members will appreciate that there is a connection, will take the lessons of the storm to heart and will consider other parts of the country on other occasions.

Mr. Ron Davies: The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) has brought our debate to a delightful conclusion and I am sure that it was appreciated by all hon. Members.
The debate has been fair and informed and it has allowed us to arrive at a considerable measure of consensus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles pointed out, it has united free marketeers calling for greater public subsidies and Socialist planners arguing the case for the Country Landowners Association.
The contributions from Conservative Members representing rural areas have been reinforced by the contribution for the urban areas from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who I am sure will join us presently. Hon. Members who have spoken with great concern on behalf of their constituents have had their views reinforced by, dare I say it, provincial Members in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who has tendered his apology for his absence as a result of another engagement, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for

Western Isles. The north of England was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Therefore, there is a wealth of pressure on the Government and we look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee for their presence in the Chamber and I am aware that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) appreciated their presence on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has already said that its report was unanimous, and that adds additional weight to it.
I have no doubt that the consensus that has been arrived at is, in large part, due to the considered and careful way in which the Committee approached its task. Among its members there has been general unity in taking issue with the Government. It is general unity because there was one lone voice—it was the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), of course—who gently prodded the Government. He declined to join his colleagues in pressing the Government more forcefully.

Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish making my insulting comments, I shall, of course, give way.
The hon. Gentleman gently prodded the Government, but otherwise he was his usual faithful self in his support for them.

Mr. Boswell: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman's comments and criticisms of me. Would he please accept that I stand by every word of the Committee's report? I notice that there are certain points in that report that are more than mildly critical of the Government and, in common with the hon. Gentleman, I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.

Mr. Davies: I am delighted to have that confirmation of the unanimity of the House and of the Select Committee. I note that the Minister is having a quick word with the representative from the Whips Office—doubtless he is looking for some sustenance for times to come. It is worth reminding him that the House and the Committee are united in support of the 16 conclusions and recommendations of the report, 12 of which are critical of the Government and call for more Government action.
If there is one message that the Minister should carry with him at the conclusion of the debate it is that there is a great deal of concern about the way in which the compensation scheme has operated and the way in which it has been laid before the House. However, I am not seeking to criticise that scheme unduly.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare introduced the Committee's report—the first report under his Chairmanship—with a graphic description of the events of last October and of the havoc and destruction that befell this corner of the south-east of England. We are not debating our concern about those events, but the nature of the Government's response to that concern and its adequacy.
We await with interest the considered response from the Government to the evidence submitted to the Committee. That evidence is not yet available and there is only one "unproofed" copy of it in the Library. I know that some of my hon. Friends have managed to look at it, but the House will appreciate the particular difficulties involved


when there is only one copy available — and that evidence is voluminous. We await with interest the Government's response tonight, as well as their response after they have had the chance to read the evidence submitted to the Committee and evaluate what has happened.
The debate is restricted to the scheme that the Government have laid before us. In common with other hon. Members — I single out the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) because he was the first to express his sympathy — I should like to express sympathy to those families who lost someone either through accident or in service to others, to people who suffered injury—perhaps not grabbing headlines at the time—and to those who suffered domestic upheaval, many of them in isolated rural areas, who were without power and access for many days. We all wish to pay tribute to their fortitude and that of' the public services that attempted to ease the situation.
The economic losses have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who mentioned the damage to horticulture, and the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord). The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) spoke movingly about the problems for growers in the southern part of Sussex. We all recognise the problems that they face. It is adequate for me to say that those problems have been described and I would be labouring the point if I made any further mention of them.
It is ironic that, give the attention that most of the day's proceedings have been afforded by the Press Gallery, it falls to me, at 7 o'clock, when the Press Gallery is empty, to put the case for the hop growers and vineyard proprietors. I am afraid that I will receive no plaudits tomorrow and no special treats during the summer.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Committee's report forcefully put the case for glasshouse growers, the soft fruit growers, the hop growers and the vineyard owners. Their case was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West. We agree with the conclusions arrived at in those paragraphs.
Hon. Members who have read the Committee's report in detail will recognise the inescapable fact that the compensation scheme is inadequately funded. Can the Minister tell us how much the Government are prepared to make available in compensation at this stage? Will that sum be cash-limited? How many applications have been received? What percentage of those applications have been processed? How many of them have been accepted? In the event of a high proportion of applications not being accepted, and if cash limits are introduced, will the Government be prepared to revise those limits? Those are realistic questions to which the hon. Member for Chichester, for one, seeks answers.
I hope that the Chairman and members of the Select Committee will listen with interest to the Minister's answers, but, if he is unable to provide those answers tonight, I hope that he will arrange for them to be sent to me in a letter, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friends receive the reply.
I wish to turn now to an issue which, I confess, has a personal interest, and on which I see almost eye to eye with the hon. Member for Daventry—the damage inflicted on trees, either as individuals or as stands, and on woodlands. There has been an economic impact, through the loss of timber, and a visual impact on the landscape.
I have toured the counties of Kent, Suffolk and Sussex and seen much of the damage which was horrific and beyond imagination. There has been a considerable effect on the landscape and a considerable loss of wildlife habitat and sporting and recreational facilities.
We must be aware of those considerations and I hope that, when the Minister considers his woodland policy in future years, he will recognise that his policy should be guided not only by economic loss but by those other considerations.
I wish to make two particular points to the Minister. First, recommendation 3 refers to the environmental damage. There has been much debate about the impact of the Bellwin scheme and I do not propose to go over that ground again. We endorse without equivocation the finding in recommendation 3 which describes the extra amount for environmental damage as entirely inadequate. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, drew attention to the fact that, with a timber loss of some 4 million cu m in the United Kingdom, the compensation fund amounted to £1 million whereas, in France, for a timber loss which was almost double, the compensation made available was 15 times greater. Those are significant figures

Mr. Wiggin: We are in a slight danger of confusing different schemes. The £1 million to which the hon. Gentleman refers relates to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scheme for farmers. There is also the Department of the Environment scheme and others. Although we have criticised that £1 million sum, it would be wrong to say that that is all that the Government have given and to give too much emphasis to it, when it is simply one part.

Mr. Davies: I accept that, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the money available from the Department of the Environment was substantially for a different purpose and not for the type of woodland loss that we have seen in the counties of the south and east.
Secondly—I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Daventry on this point, both earlier and in Committee — I should like to draw to the attention of the House a point which arose from the evidence given by Mr. Francis of the Forestry Commission in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Daventry. He was referring to the factors which affected the extent and nature of windblow damage. He said:
The other factor which is, in my mind, quite significant on this occasion is the fact that the population of trees which existed was, in a sense, a very vulnerable one, because it had a high component of trees which were over-mature and whose quality was often much deteriorated. Like any other living thing, trees as they get older become more susceptible to a variety of things, including in this instance stormblow. So that I think one of the implications of the storm in the long term is to consider that perhaps on occasions we might be keeping trees for far too long, simply because we treasure the appearance of them in the landscape—as we do—and that we do not readily accept the challenge of taking them away and replacing them.
The hon. Member for Daventry stressed that point. It is a difficult matter, which will have to be addressed.
I do not want to pre-empt next week's debate on the farm woodlands scheme, but it is worth saying that we must all consider the record of the Forestry Commission. I am not criticising officials who cannot defend themselves. In a sense, I am criticising politicians from both parties for the policies that they required and


encouraged the Forestry Commission to follow. Certainly, until the present decade, it was an accepted Forestry Commission policy to allow, with the encouragement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the clearance of broadleaved woods and the conversion of that land to agriculture. That is not a criticism of the present Minister, but of all Governments of the past 20 or 30 years. It is ironic that, in 1988, the Government are embarking, with our full support, on a programme of taking that land out of agriculture and reconverting it to broadleaved woodland. That is one aspect of policy that the Forestry Commission had got wrong.
The second aspect that the Forestry Commission had got wrong was its policy of allowing the clearance of broadleaved woodlands and their replacement with coniferous afforestation. The third aspect that the Commission had got wrong was the fact that it gave little attention to the use of woodlands for wider purposes, either for the enjoyment of the environment, for habitat creation or for the recreation of those natural woodlands. Those are major areas where forestry policy has been wrong.
One of the consequences—it may well have been a Freudian slip on the part of the hon. Member for Daventry when he referred to timber preservation orders—has been the overwillingness of all of us, on both sides of the House and of all shades of political opinion, to think that tree preservation orders are the answer. Those orders preserve individual species and allow the woodland area to go without protection. It is a difficult matter. We do not want to lose the existing protection, but we should be looking to expand our forestry policy. The events of last autumn provide an opportunity for such reconsideration.
I wish to ask the Minister one particular question. Has his Department considered allowing management grants to be available under the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill for new woodlands which will be created by replanting in those areas where the existing woodland has been destroyed by windblow? The answer to that question would be interesting because it would show Opposition Members how the Government intend to approach future forestry policy.
By and large, I endorse the evidence given by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to the Select Committee on Agriculture when it said that, in some of the areas damaged — the hon. Member for Wealden referred particularly to the problems of access—there must be a strong case for allowing some of the timber which has fallen to remain and to rot in its place because it will have immense benefits for wildlife conservation and for the creation of a variety of wildlife habitats. That will he difficult, but, when the six-month period has elapsed and the timber starts to deteriorate on the ground, there must be a case for making the best of a bad job and leaving the timber there to provide environmental benefits.
I hope that the Minister will consider the opportunities in planting schemes generally for the creation of new habitats for flora and fauna. I hope that he will consider particularly the issue of phased stocking because, if there is agreement that one of the problems is the over-mature, even aged, nature of our timber stocks, one of the solutions must be a phased programme of restocking. I hope that the

Minister will carefully consider the possibility of extending support under the existing scheme so that planting can take place over a five, 10, 15 or 20-year period.
My conclusion is that which many hon. Members have reached and which was put in a paragraph 16 of the Committee's summary of conclusions and recommendations:
A more thorough and long-term Government strategy, particularly financial but advisory as well, is now needed.'
All I can add is that Opposition Members warmly endorse that final recommendation from the Select Committee. We will certainly offer our political and nonpartisan support to the Government if they are prepared to embark on that programme of rethinking their financial and advisory support.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): This has been a good, most interesting and full debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for chairing his first Committee so effectively that he has managed to get its report debated in the House so urgently and so quickly. That cannot be bad. I shall mention in a moment all those hon. Members who have had experience of a Select Committee for the first time. Back in 1979, I served on what was then the new Trade and Industry Select Committee. I enjoyed every minute of it, although I am not eager to return to it.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the way in which he responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and I shall deal later with the various points that he made.
As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has just said, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) dealt with the important matters of taxation, insurance and time in his usual urbane way. I shall try to take up many of the points that he made.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), representing the alliance, has left his apologies because he has had to leave the debate to go to another meeting. He mentioned horticulture and what happened in 1947. Unfortunately, some of us remember the days of 1947, although we did not know what the Government were doing. Indeed, I am not sure whether we were grumbling or cheering at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) raised the subject of householders and how bravely—I think that that is the right word—they met the disaster and managed to sort it out for themselves. I took his comment about points of public awareness relating to public areas of beauty.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) who said that I should give the Government's full and proper answer tonight. I cannot give the Government's full and proper answer tonight because the Government have not yet considered every aspect of the evidence that was collected by the Committee. I act in what is perhaps one of my proper roles as a sponge and a listener. If anybody else had said that, I think that we would have had another question of privilege.

Mr. Higgins: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can clarify a point about timing. We fully understand his point about the need for consideration of the report before the


Government give a full and considered reply, but at the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked why the debate was taking place now. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the debate is taking place on an Estimate, which is a request by the Government for money and that that necessarily has a tight timetable so that the money can be provided. That is why the debate is taking place now. If we had not taken this opportunity, it would have been a considerable time before we could raise the matter again. The report has been produced at short notice—I am sure that it is worth while—but that is the reason for the hurry with which it has been produced.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend. I could not have put it better myself. I cannot say for one moment that I was coming to that, so I thank my right hon. Friend, who, as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, has cleared up that point efficiently.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned the years to come. I fully agree with a great deal, if not with all, that he said about the years to come. I am talking not especially about paragraph 16, but about the way in which we must plan our forestry provision in the years to come. We must harvest it and use it as a resource. Planners and other people must not be surprised when a wood is suddenly chopped down tree by tree and when saplings and new trees are planted in their place. We must use all our present knowledge of woodlands to ensure that we leave cover for animals, the natural habitat and for the flora and fauna that the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned. That was a point well made and I am sure that he will make it even more forcefully to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who sends his apologies tonight from Brussels—[Interruption.] Well, I am sure that he would have been here if he had known that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would be here.
I was surprised by the devastation when I recently went to look at woods in the south. I was surprised at the way in which whole swathes had been cut and trees had been broken up, smashed and twisted. I was also surprised at the neglect of some of the woods. This point was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I had not realised that there was such neglect. Now, when travelling home on the train — I travel by public transport whenever I can—I look most carefully at the trees and the woods and notice the amount of neglect and that they represent a great deal of money lying around that could be used in all sorts of ways. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry raised that point.
The hon. Member for Southall spoke about London. I am sure that we were all surprised to see the devastation in London parks and on London commons and to see the great trees that had been blown down. My hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) were among the first into my office after the great disaster. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friends make their points so clearly and promptly. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was also helpful at the time, although perhaps he would now like to be an astrologer.
I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) at present in what he said about

the village of Vigo, but I should like him to write to me about that and we shall see what we can do, without making any promises.
I was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) had enjoyed his first Committee. I am sure that he will enjoy many more. I shall not follow him or be teased by him on the political points that he raised. I was glad to see the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) in his place, emphasising the unity of the United Kingdom, with the Western Isles supporting those in the south and casting a doubt on the ten-minute Bill this afternoon. I was glad to hear that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry contributed in his usual efficient way and I have no criticism of what he said, even if the hon. Member for Caerphilly has.
We have had a useful debate. Last week Task Force Trees produced a beautiful document. It is available free from the Countryside Commission. I commend it to those who take an interest in trees, even to the hon. Member for Southall. The document is superbly produced. I had begun to think that the Department of Trade and Industry had a monopoly on such productions, but this is a very good document.
The Government were anxious to make clear at the outset their determination actively to encourage the restoration of our damaged landscape. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 21 October that £2·75 million would be available for tree planting through the Countryside Commission. At the same time, he was able to announce the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to offer grants of up to 60 per cent. for the replanting on lowland farms of hedges, shelter belts and windbreaks, and for the replacement of stone walls in traditional materials. The rates are double those normally available in those areas under capital grant schemes.
On 30 November, we introduced the storm damage recovery scheme, which not only provided grants for the replacement of the damaged environment but introduced a new payment of £2 per tree for damaged fruit trees—and that payment is not cash-restricted. Additional assistance will be provided to the glasshouse sector, which was particularly hard hit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare referred to the French Government's offer of 280 million francs. At the new improved rate of 10 francs to the pound, that is £28 million. The Government have provided, or will provide, £32 million, so the French still have £4 million to go. I wish we could do as well at rugby.
We have provided £3 million for the Countryside Commission to plant amenity trees; £250,000 for the royal parks; £250,000 for Kew gardens; £2 million for I he replacement of orchard trees up to 1991; a significant amount for glasshouses; £1 million for replacement of hedges, shelter belts and windbreaks up to 1990; £200,000 for the farm and countryside initiative; £250,000 for English Heritage; an additional £800,000 to the Countryside Commission for 1988–89—we are reviewing the need for a long-term programme; £400,000 for the National Heritage Memorial Fund; and £300,000 for historic gardens.
I am delighted to say—it will not be said often at the Dispatch Box—that the Treasury has been very good.
Once the scheme was agreed upon, the Treasury has not nit-picked or gone through it with a fine-tooth comb, as other people have sometimes experienced it doing.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Tell us more.

Mr. Thompson: I do not have time to go into details.
Many hon. Members have been concerned about the £25 million provided to local authorities under the Bellwin formula. Opposition Members have been wound up by their local authorities to shout foul and to say that the Government are making a profit. I know how much local authorities abhor the word "profit", even more if the Government are making it. Fortunately, in this case the authorities are not right.
We wrote to 200 local authorities and the Government made available a substantial and generous package of measures to assist them with storm damage. Special financial assistance is available at 75 per cent. of eligible expenditure above a threshold amount. Additional capital allowances are available for 1987–88 and authorities have been relieved of block grant lost on all storm-related expenditure in 1987–88 above the threshold and on loan charges resulting from capital expenditure incurred up to the end of 1988–89 for the remainder of the present rate support grant period.

Dr. David Clark: I am grateful for that reassurance. Is the Minister telling us that the London borough of Barnet will receive no penalty at all on its storm damage expenditure? The matter is of interest to all hon. Members.

Mr. Thompson: It is indeed. I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Chamber while Barnet was being discussed, and I will put to him again the question of the hon. Member for South Shields. I cannot answer it in detail, but I reiterate that the Government do not intend to make a profit out of the storm damage.
The problem of clearance is enormous, and clearance cannot be accomplished overnight, as the primary responsibility rests with landowners, whether they be local authorities, public utilities or private individuals.
The report of the Agriculture Committee may have given a slightly misleading impression about the Government's contribution through the farm and countryside initiative. Many people think that the initiative has been of small import, but work is being done on sites which stretch across the wind belt, and a good job is being done. The initiative is being used as wisely as possible to clear up the damage.
I have heard what hon. Members have said about a transport subsidy to move trees, to find more readily available markets in other parts of the country. I will pass the concern of right hon. and hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I welcome the Committee's endorsement of the special measures taken by the Government to help glasshouse growers. We will consider carefully the recommendation of the Committee and consider what more may be done, but I underline the help already offered. Glasshouse growers benefit from a higher rate of grant than other production sectors. For the past five years, we have paid

grants of 50 per cent. of replacement for heated glasshouses, up to £136,000, which far exceeds the rate of grant provided under the relevant EC legislation, and we have been able to operate only on a special time-limited derogation from those rules.
Insurance plays some part and is the norm. Most growers are prudent men and were insured. I recognise that, given the extra demand arising from the storm damage, the cost of materials and labour may have increased considerably. However, insofar as the costs increase the amount of grant payable, which is fixed as a percentage of the total, that will increase. We recognise also that growers who already had improvement plans could face difficulty in meeting their commitments under those plans because of the shortage of labour and materials, so we have extended by six months the deadline for insurance claims.
The date for notification of claims under the storm damage recovery scheme is set at 31 March, but that does not mean that all the i's must be dotted and t's must be crossed by that date. People can make a general claim and then we can go through it afterwards. It would be impossible for people to go into such detail when, as hon. Members have said, the trees are still growing and their businesses are still flourishing. It is peculiar how quickly things come in at the end, and we are asking claimants not to make definite notification but to let us, have their schemes.
There is a need for a longer-term replacement strategy. The programme of assistance by Task Force Trees has made a useful and immediate contribution to that. For the longer term, the Government will take careful note of the Committee's observations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is already discussing with the Countryside Commission the need for the continuation of its special programme of grants and to assess how this will fit in with the efforts of local authorities, other bodies and individual owners. The Government will make a statement of their intentions in good time for the start of the next planting season. They will be aided by the report, expected shortly, by the technical committee chaired by the Department of the Environment, which is preparing a comprehensive assessment of the damage caused to trees. We shall also take continuous account of the need to ensure that adequate advice is available on planting and aftercare. As an important step, we have the action pack.
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I am sure that it has given hon. Members a valuable opportunity to look at and talk through many of the problems caused by the great storm. I hope that I have been able to allay some of the fears expressed today, partly on what hon. Gentlemen were expecting to be the rigidity of the Government—it is clear that there is no such rigidity—partly on what was seen as the parsimony of the Government—obviously, in the light of the magnificent record and other action being considered, there has been no parsimony—and partly on how we shall treat other sectors.
I am going to see the vineyard owners myself—[AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman will not be going on public transport after that."] With any luck at all, I shall only be fit to go on public transport after that!
I have heard what has been said about the soft fruit and hop growers. There is, of course, aid available under the AIS plan for both those sectors—for polythene tunnels at the rate of 25 per cent. and for stakes and wirework for


hops and cane fruit at the rate of 15 per cent., with a ceiling of £50,000. No special help has been sought by the NFU for that sector, but I have heard what hon. Gentlemen have said about it.
I once again thank all hon. Members for a very good debate.

Question deferred pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

CLASS VI, VOTE 1

Coal Industry

[Relevant document: Second Report from the Energy Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 306 of Session 1987–88) on Spring Supplementary Estimate: Assistance to the Coal Industry.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,277,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on assistance to the coal industry including grants to the British Coal Corporation and payments to redundant workers. — [Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Sir Ian Lloyd: The House has been listening to a most interesting debate, introduced with his characteristic good humour and geniality by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, on the hurricane that blew through the fair forests of England. I wish that I had an equally interesting and congenial subject to present to the House, but I fear that I have not. I apologise for the fact that it is unavoidably dry and technical, although I think not unimportant.
The object of my Committee's report is the examination of a particular aspect of expenditure. The Committee's prime responsibility, under Standing Order No. 130, is to examine expenditure generally. This is a responsibility that we discharge with some assiduity and, I hope, accuracy.
Support for the coal industry continues to he a major segment of public expenditure. As the Secretary of State told the House not long ago, the Government are spending about £2 million a day on new investment in the coal industry. The particular subject of our report was a Supplementary Estimate for £162 million, made up broadly as follows: £100 million towards the increased deficit which is anticipated in the current financial year, and £60 million towards what is broadly defined as restructuring, but which is essentially the redundancy lump-sum arrangements which have been made by the industry. That is exactly what it means.
My Committee has been concerned with both these subjects and with three aspects of them. The first is the scale of the provision, and I shall come back to that in a moment. The second is the under-provision in the Main Estimates, despite our warning to the Government last year that we suspected that there would be under-provision. The Government were somewhat contemptuous of our view and said so quite openly. The third aspect with which we are concerned is British Coal's failure to achieve its goals, although we are fully aware of the size of the problem that the board has to face and of its recent achievements.
There is in the public expenditure White Paper a forecast of loss before deficit grant of £195 million. The latest Government memorandum suggested that this would be significantly in excess of £200 million, so Parliament voted £414 million in 1986–87 for deficit grant and a further £114 million in a Supplementary Estimate. The public expenditure White Paper has projected another £195 million loss in 1987–88 and warned that it could be substantially greater than £200 million.
The question is: when is this going to end, if ever? We know that during the first world war the men of the line were known as the Old Contemptibles. There is a group of beneficiaries in the Budget which I think we could call the "old reimbursables". It includes, certainly, British Coal, British Rail, Girobank, the common agricultural policy, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, British Shipbuilders and a number of others.
So, when we look at the figures for British Coal in particular, we must realise that this is but the tip of a very substantial iceberg indeed. The total Treasury operating subsidy to British Coal from 1982 to 1987–88 was the staggering sum of £6,025 million—roughly £120 per head of the population, or £300 per family. If that target subsidy figure is met, it will cost each family £42, and if the subsidy that is concealed in the CEGB's purchase-of-coal arrangement is added, both those sets of figures are very substantially increased.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman refers to these massive subsidies. I think he ought to bear in mind that many things are subsidised in this economy of ours. For instance, would he consider that the £550 per annum that is paid by every family in Britain to assist farmers, not only in this country, but indirectly in West Germany, France and elsewhere, is a massive subsidy? That is far in excess of anything relating to the coal industry.

Sir I. Lloyd: I quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If we look at these massive documents, the public expenditure White Papers and analyses, we see a wide range of subsidy. I do not wish to comment on the merits of any particular one, but it seems to me that in making judgments, as we are trying to do, about the scale of public expenditure, these figures cannot be neglected. Some are very large indeed, and all of us have views on the merits, or indeed the demerits, of particular subsidies, but I do not think that we can escape the obligation to look at them sanely and sensibly and to recognise and appreciate their scale and significance.
When Sir Robert Haslam was giving evidence to my Committee two or three weeks ago, he made the claim that by 1988–89 British Coal should effectively be operating out of the red and he in profit. He suggested that three fundamental conditions must be fulfilled if British Coal was to achieve that position. First, the dollar should not weaken; secondly, international coal prices should remain firm; and thirdly, there should be harmony in industrial relations.
Within the last few days it has become clear that, far from going in the direction that Sir Robert wishes, the dollar is falling, thus aggravating the problem. There is no sign of international coal prices firming. They, too, are tending to fall. And, sadly, industrial relations harmony is not exactly what everyone would hope. None of Sir Robert's conditions has been fulfilled.
What provision for deficit grant will the Government be likely to have to make in the main March Estimates this year? That question greatly concerns my Committee, and I believe that it should concern the House and the country. We would be grateful if my hon. Friend would give us as precise a figure as he can.
Let me deal next with restructuring. The Summer Supplementary Estimate for the redundant mineworkers payments scheme was £39 million, which covered the closure of 16 pits, with five expected in that year. The payments would be made to some 15,000 miners who left the industry. The Committee understands the reasons for that, but what future provision is now required? In his evidence Sir Robert Haslam predicted a further 20 closures and a further 15,000 redundancies, on the favourable conditions that he postulated. Even if the Government do not share the Committee's gloomy prognosis on the last occasion — which, unfortunately, seems to have been justified — our pessimism may have to be repeated on this occasion, and the Government may take a different view.
The Coal Industry Act 1987 provided about £300 million for restructuring grants, with a total limit of £700 million. The restructuring grants order will increase that sum to £500 million. If the protection of long-term contracts does not continue and dramatic increases in productivity do not occur, the number of closures could clearly increase. The Committee is, I think, entitled to ask what will be the cost to the nation. As the House has already discovered this week, that question has a particular, immediate and much more local application to Scotland.
The Committee reached two key conclusions in paragraph 10 of its report. The first was that, if there were more closures, there would have to be more restructuring support than appears to be anticipated at present. The second was that, if there were no more closures there would have to be more support of the deficit on the operating grant as the coal industry endeavoured to meet what are undoubtedly likely to be severe and challenging market conditions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not wish to lead the hon. Gentleman into the current great Scottish problem, but has he any objective view on the use by an electricity board of short-term marginal costings?

Sir I. Lloyd: Whether short-term or long-term marginal costing is the appropriate technique for pricing electricity is a complex and difficult subject, and would lead me down many avenues and cul-de-sacs, so I do not think that I wish to pursue it tonight. The Committee will undoubtedly explore the subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and with other witnesses, and we shall return to it.
Can the Government now define the limits of the claims that they are prepared to allow the coal industry to make on the taxpayer, whatever the circumstances? As we know, those circumstances are widely unpredictable. The financial consequences of meeting the downside risk are prodigious, and it is for that reason especially that my Committee wished to bring the subject to the Floor of the House this evening.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), as I have done on many occasions in these debates, for he always argues his case fairly and objectively.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen the headline in the Financial Times which, perhaps, described the position more dramatically than he did. It read, "More


subsidy or close pits"—or perhaps it was, "Close pits or more subsidy". I may not have got it exactly right, but I have got the sense right.
The hon. Gentleman has told the House that it will be the responsibility of his Committee to examine the matter in greater detail. I wonder whether he has had a chance to glance at Hansard of 23 February, when his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy answered a question put by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). I do not intend to give details for every year, but if the hon. Gentleman examines the answer he will find that other nations pay massive coal subsidies in comparison with us.
In 1987, for instance, the subsidy in Belgium—which has a much smaller coal industry—was £57·55 per tonne. France, which has a slightly larger coal industry, paid £22·16 per tonne. The Federal Republic of Germany, whose coal industry is more comparable with ours, paid a subsidy of £29·45 per tonne. The United Kingdom subsidy is £10·12 per tonne. West Germany pays nearly three times as much. If we are to view the matter objectively, we should do so by taking into account what happens to other coal industries.
I remember hearing Sir Robert Haslam tell us that if we were to draw comparisons between our coal industry and others, West Germany was probably the fairest comparison in Europe. He said that our coal industry costs were 35 per cent. better than those in West Germany. He was also able to tell us that West Germany is not allowed to import a single tonne of coking coal.
Other nations take steps to protect their coal industries. For whatever reason, West Germany has decided to do so. A tremendous argument is taking place about this at present. For example, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said yesterday that if the policy of electricity privatisation were pursued, it would mean the complete demise of the coal industry. That was not said by one of my hon. Friends.
I should like, however, to deal with other aspects of the fine contribution of the hon. Member for Havant. Many doubts have been expressed in the coal Estimates. One was based on the decline in the value of the dollar, on which the hon. Gentleman commented. In 1987, the gap between the prices of British and foreign coal increased by 25 per cent., or £6 a tonne. As Sir Robert Haslam said in his evidence, it led to the loss of about £500 million-worth of sales. He is on record describing that loss of £500 million as
pro rata to our size equivalent to wiping out the entire profits of ICI: one has only to imagine the effect of that on the United Kingdom's industrial and financial scene to recognise the severe problems we are facing.
One of the doubts expressed in the Estimates — I think Sir Robert Haslam said this—was based on the hope that the dollar would stabilise at about $1·50. There was a hoo-hah on the radio this morning about what has happened to the pound. It was said that the pound is leaping forward and that there is no restriction on it. For some hon. Members who recall 1981, when we experienced the massive slaughter of a large section of British industry, that statement will be of little comfort. I do not think that there is a hope in hell of the dollar reaching !1·50.
That doubt about the dollar is overshadowed by the doubt about British Coal breaking even, and I do not think that there is a chance of it doing so. The Government

have left themselves open to the charge that they are anti-British Coal and, together with the Estimates, that is what we must debate tonight.
To some extent, we are having the same debate as we had last Wednesday. We are talking about finance, restructuring and deficit grant. I confirm what the hon. Member for Havant said. At the end of the miners' strike there were 169 pits. British Coal contemplates that by the end of March 1988 there will be 66 pits, even taking into account the three new pits in the Selby complex. Total manpower has fallen from 220,000 to 127,000 — a reduction of 93,000, of which 78,000 were miners.
Those figures do not tell of the misery and pain that the closures have caused mining communities. Those closures were carried out under the name of restructuring. Those job losses are without parallel in recent times in any industry in the United Kingdom.
The figures that I have given are not entirely accurate because more pits will be closed and more jobs will be lost. When considering the Coal Estimates and the Select Committee's report we must consider the serious position in which the coal industry finds itself. The present average age of miners is 34. The perception of the coal industry among much of the public is that pit closures have involved aged men being offered an opportunity to leave on generous redundancy terms. That ceased to happen some time ago.
Further, much of the public's perception is that all the pits that have been closed were clapped out and were using mining technology of yesteryear. On the contrary, pits have closed that were not old and used modern technology. In general, they were not closed because of exhaustion of coal seams but because of market conditions.
Those closures have been accelerated by the promise of cheap foreign coal, much of which is heavily subsidised and sold at below the cost of production. I dealt with that matter in some detail in my speech last Wednesday.
Parliament must be made aware of the changing pattern that will emerge. British Coal has claimed that during the massive contraction of the industry all the redundancies have been voluntary and have been carried out under the Government's redundant mineworkers payments scheme. However, when the Government abandoned that commitment, redundancies proceeded under British Coal's own scheme, which was not so generous. It made offers to miners to stay in the industry, and some did.
The new dimension that overshadows the debate is that that offer has been withdrawn. For the first time since the 1930s, coalminers will be shuffled on to the dole. Many of those 34-year-old kids are faced with the prospect of their working lives ending because there are no other employment prospects in mining communities, and that is a scandal.
I used the phrase "those kids"; they are 34 years of age. I could say "my kids", because this year I will be 68 years old. Never in my wildest dreams did I dream that I would have to make a speech in this Mother of Parliaments while people are cold and dying of hypothermia. Those kids will end up on the dole and will be unable to find a job for the rest of their natural lives. What a prospect that is. It is a scandal.
All the evidence in the dispute between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal points to the fact that there was Government connivance in it. The Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland laid


themselves open to a charge of conspiracy. The international coal report in the Financial Times said that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave assent not once but twice to Donald Miller to negotiate contracts for foreign coal. The Secretary of State for Energy, who is supposed to be the Minister with responsibility for coal, made it clear this year that he supports the British electricity supply industry being entitled to buy its coal from whatever source it chooses. The proposed slaughter of the deep-mine coal industry in Scotland or the fact that 3,500 jobs would be lost did not bother them one bit.
I have done various calculations about the effects of the slaughter of the British coal-mining industry, and we are talking about a loss of 7,000 to 10,000 jobs. Railway workers' jobs, and the jobs of those engaged in other aspects of the transport industry and in the light engineering industry, are in peril. When we look at the Scottish economy, we see nothing but a desert of hopelessness.
The matter took a further twist when British Coal took the SSEB to court on the basis that it had a valid contract for coal burning at the Cockenzie and Longannet power stations. It obtained an interim judgment from Lord Prosser. His judgment was based on the fact that the effect of that on the Scottish coal industry would be "catastrophic and irreversible." The learned judge showed more concern than the Secretary of State for Energy. Despite that judgment, the SSEB is to import 1 million tonnes of coal from China, Australia and the United States. That is why there was anger in the House last night. The Secretary of State for Scotland did not tell the House what had already happened in relation to that order for 1 million tonnes of coal. Some of us understand what happens in the machinery of government.
The Secretary of State for Scotland issued a press release on Sunday—an unparalleled action—and said that he would be winding up the debate on electricity privatisation on the following day. He gave the impression that when he did so he would give some hope to miners in Scotland. But he made what I have described as a sixth-form debating speech, and he gave no hope to Scotland's miners. All he could say was that he hoped both sides would come together and resolve their differences.
I remember the interjection by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) who said that we faced a similar situation when we were in government. He described how he brought both sides together. There was some knocking of heads, and agreement was arrived at. He forgot to say that I was present at that meeting as the Minister responsible for coal.
I could go on and quote what The Scotsman said, but I will say instead that what distinguishes the Secretary of State for Energy from the Secretary of State for Scotland is that, by virtue of his office in the Department of Energy, he meets the chairmen of the Central Electricity Generating Board and of British Coal. We understand, however, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal only with the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board. Time and again he comes to the Dispatch Box and mouths its case. He has never seen representatives of British Coal in Scotland. The charge that I am making in relation to the coal industry in Scotland is that he has not

been even-handed in his approach. It should be the duty and responsibility of a Minister to be even-handed in dealing with this great crisis.
I have described what happened in the privatisation debate last night. The Minister cheated by putting out that press release on Sunday and then saying that there was very little that he could do. There is little doubt that the future of the coal industry is tied to the future of the electricity industry, as the hon. Member for Havant said. More than 75 per cent. of sales go to the CEGB and SSEB, and since 1982–83, 70 per cent. of its total output has gone there.
It is a matter of public record that the CEGB told the Select Committee on Energy in 1986 that it could import 30 million tonnes of coal within three years. Since then, the Secretary of State for Energy has helped that process by giving permission for an 8 million-tonnes-a-year deep-water port at Fawley, Southampton. We know that there are two Bills before the House now to seek approval for two ports on the Humber, each for importing 5 million tonnes a year. We know that the SSEB claims that it has facilities to import more than 1 million tonnes.
I told Conservative Members on Wednesday that when one examines what it is possible to achieve and the international market, it is very difficult to see how we could indulge in importing coal. But I am not prepared to predict what will happen to coal imports in view of the way in which this Government are carrying on.

Mr. Peter Rost: I have much respect for the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) when he is speaking in coal debates. He has been easy and liberal in his criticism of the Government's policy towards the coal industry. Perhaps he would like to put it into perspective and tell us about the time when he was a Minister in the Department of Energy in the previous Labour Government. How many pits did he close, and how much less did he invest in the coal industry than we have invested since we took office?
Mr. Eadie: I shall have pleasure in telling the hon. Gentleman about that. I have already described, for example, what we did in relation to Scotland when there were problems in the coal industry. The hon. Gentleman asks what we did when we were in office. We started research and development into the coal industry. We started projects for making oil and gas from coal. Indeed, when I became Minister for energy—in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about what the Government did then for the coal industry—the Labour Government introduced "Plan for Coal" to revitalise that industry, which was at the undertakers. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our attitude to the coal industry.
The Government seem to encourage these initiatives but they can see what will happen to British Coal and its long-standing arrangements with the electricity industry, and say that the free market is the optimum mechanism for planning the production of coal and electricity, despite the fact that Sir Robert Haslam among others has warned that the international coal market is not a free market and is unlikely to become one.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He was faced with the question of how many pits were closed under the Labour Government. Would he not accept that during that period many coal mines needed to be closed?

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Oh.

Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the coal industry, he would realise why I am saying this. The seams were too small for the technology used today to operate in them. There was a need to close pits even on safety grounds, and on the basis of reorganisation so that central pits could do the winding. It meant that pits were more efficient.
But at present, efficient pits are being closed. They are productive, raising a profit and operating the most modern technology. The only reason why they are being closed is that there are sudden movements in the market price of coal, as a result of coal being produced in South Africa by slave labour and produced in Colombia by children. If that is what Conservative Members want, they must live with that on their consciences for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Eadie: I must come to what is at the back of what my hon. Friend is saying about the noises we are hearing from Conservative Members. I know that there is a lot of talk on Conservative Benches about 30 million tonnes of coal being imported into this country. I have already told them my analysis of the facts and that such a plan does not make much sense. Tonight, I want to fill in the scenario of what would happen to the British coal industry with that extra 30 million tonnes of coal coming in.
In Scotland, there would be no pits left. In the northeast, where there are six pits, one would be left. In north Yorkshire, eight pits would be threatened and they would have only six left. In south Yorkshire, eight pits would be threatened and there would be 11 pits left out of 19. In Nottinghamshire, nine pits would be threatened out of 19 and there would be 10 left. In the centre, and north of Derbyshire, five out of nine would go, and four would he left. In the western division, five would be threatened and six would be left. In south Wales, nine pits would be threatened out of 14 and there would be five left. Of course, the Kent pits would be wiped out.
I must ask why importing foreign coal is advocated. It is provided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has said, by the sweat of South African labour and the work of eight-year-old children in Colombia. It comes from Poland, who are concerned only about getting currency, or from China or the Soviet Union. How can this Government even contemplate wiping out the coal industry to the extent that I have suggested? Are they advocating that we should import 30 million tonnes of coal? It would be the height of idiocy.
At Question Time yesterday and in the electricity privatisation debate, the Secretary of State for Energy said that we had to have a nuclear power industry because it was in the strategic interests of the country. Yet he does not believe that it is in the strategic interests of the nation to have a coal industry. He concedes that we may require 90 million tonnes or 80 million tonnes of coal and wondered what we were worrying about, but he did not say where that coal would come from. That is why I make the charge that, although the Government may say that they are pro-coal, they give every indication of being anti-British Coal.
The debate gives us the opportunity to talk about the coal industry. The Government seem to be financially conscious. I could give them figures to show what the slaughter of the coal industry would mean in Scotland. We would he talking not about millions but about billions of

pounds, and not just that but the human misery that would go with it of 34-year-olds being flung on the scrap heap. I welcome the opportunity of opening the debate for the Opposition.

Mr. Peter Rost: I feel that I have been here before, year after year after year. Debates about Supplementary Estimates for the coal industry remind me of the debates which we used to have about Supplementary Estimates to prop up British Leyland. I am not making a point about whether it is right that we should approve the Supplementary Estimates. The question that we should ask is whether the endless subsidies of the past have helped to produce a more efficient, competitive coal industry. Have those subsidies helped to produce cheaper coal which could have saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in the rest of British industry which has suffered job losses and uncompetitiveness because our energy prices have been too high?
The answer has to be that huge subsidies have not helped to make the coal industry more efficient, but over more recent years there has been a change of policy, with the subsidies having had a few strings attached. The Government have insisted that the industry also plays its role and gets its house in order. That is the big difference.
When we consider the huge amount of taxpayers' money which has gone into the coal industry, we could say that it was justified if it had achieved a coal industry which could now produce a product which could compete not just in our own market but in Europe, our natural market. Unfortunately that has not happened because too many of the subsidies have been granted too freely by the House, without the proviso that the money went into the development of more efficient new faces, more automation and more restructuring.
Too much money has gone on featherbedding inefficient pits which should have been closed. Restructuring could have resulted in more coal being produced at a lower price, which would have meant more secure jobs in the coal industry. That is the tragedy of the endless, repetitive sessions which we have had year alter year in debating the provision of more money for the coal industry. Thanks to the Government—my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this shortly—at long last we are ensuring that we are getting value for money from the subsidies. The industry is becoming more competitive and more efficient.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman knows so much about subsidies to British coal, can he tell me what subsidies there are on foreign coal coming into the country?

Mr. Rost: As the hon. Gentleman will know, imports of foreign coal have to comply with fair trading rules. If there is evidence of dumping, as there has been in the past which has led to unfair prices, and if it can be identified, it will be stopped. The coal board is happy to insist on that policy and I am sure that the Government support it. Certainly within the EEC the fair trading rules would ensure that there is a competitive market.
The point I want to emphasise is that British coal could be the cheapest in Europe. We can produce coal at about £20 a tonne in our most efficient mines. All we have to do is concentrate on opening up and developing more of our


enormous reserves. We could have lower-cost production with more automated machinery. The work would be less hazardous and less risky, with higher rewards for those who work in the industry. As a result, coal could be produced in excess of our demands. British Coal could compete against all imports and we could re-establish some of the long-lost export markets. That should be the Government's target, and I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that that is the strategy. If it is not, the House should not approve further subsidies without ensuring that they are being put to good purpose.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the hon. Member suggesting that coal reserves should be abandoned if the coal costs more to extract?

Mr. Rost: I am grateful for that intervention because I was coming to that point. As Opposition Members will no doubt agree, far too many pits which still have good reserves have been closed. Those pits could still be open. They were closed not because the subsidies were not generous enough but because they were too generous. Those subsidies allowed the industry to relax in a featherbedded atmosphere instead of improving its management and its industrial relations, as it has done in the last two years.
British Coal's overheads and wasteful bureaucracy have been got under control, with an improvement in productivity. That has happened only because the Government have insisted that subsidies should have strings attached, that the industry had to make a contribution, that working practices had to improve, that restrictive practices had to end, that there should be flexible working and that the coal industry should operate in the industrial relations climate in which every other industry had to learn to operate to survive. There is nothing special about the coal industry which means that it should be protected from the natural forces of world competition. It would not need such protection if it continued to improve its productivity in the way advocated by management and more enlightened union leaders.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a natural market for coal, but the energy market is not a natural market in any way. He talks about featherbedding and support for the British coal industry. Does he not accept that it receives the least support of any coal industry in Europe, while its efficiency and production are the best in the world? Does he further accept that there has been considerable dumping? The hon. Gentleman talked about the Government taking action against dumping. That is codswallop. The Government have never taken any action against dumping—even when the European Community asked them to take action against dumped American and Polish coal.

Mr. Rost: I rather regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman because he appears to have used that opportunity to make his own speech. I think it might be appropriate if I got on and expressed my own thoughts rapidly so that hon. Members can make their own contributions. The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. He has completely missed the point. Subsidies are relative. One needs subsidies if one does not have the enormous

potential coal reserves that we have in this country. With our opportunities for low-cost coal production, we do not need subsidies.
We have had subsidies only because the industry has not got its act together and because management has not been allowed to manage and trade union leaders have refused to co-operate in achieving higher productivity and threfore lower-cost coal as well as a better living standard for those who work in the industry. That is what has to happen now. I believe that the Government will insist that it does. One way of doing that is to make the industry face reality at long last, as every other industry has had to do. That does not necessarily mean more pit closures or lost jobs. It could mean the opposite.
If the industry seized the enormous opportunities that it now has—not just as a result of the privatisation of the electricity industry but as a result of the enormous future of new coal technologies—instead of trying to resist them, it could make the most stupendous comeback and could be exporting coal and creating more employment and more wealth.
I do not believe that that can happen entirely within the present structure of British Coal. I accept that enormous progress is being made with British Coal, and undoubtedly the industry will become more efficient so that it will be able to compete against imports when the electricity industry is privatised. However, I believe that something more has to happen. I regret that the Government have not responded to the Select Committee's report of last year.
We went into the coal industry in great depth and studied coal industries in the private sector abroad. We examined the potential of improved productivity. Our recommendations were not unanimous, and no doubt Opposition Members will express the opposing view. The majority view of the Committee was that we have suffered a handicap because we have handcuffed ourselves and prevented the private sector from contributing to coal production.
I have always maintained that it is not just ridiculous but an absolute scandal that major companies such as BP, which have worldwide experience in coal production and which produce almost as much coal as British Coal, although they have to produce it abroad, should be prohibited by statute from investing in the British coal industry. Think of the enormous opportunities that could have been opened up if we had allowed British private enterprise, with mining expertise, to go into partnership with the nationalised industry to open up new faces more quickly than British Coal has been able to do, and to help to produce more competitive coal. If we had done that, we would have a flourishing coal industry.
That does not necessarily mean that we have to privatise British Coal. However, by now, we should have allowed competition from the private sector to develop alongside British Coal. We should have allowed new investment from the private sector to come in. As with oil and gas, licensing should be with the Department of Energy and not under the patronage of British Coal.
Already, one or two area boards are interested in operating coal mines. An individual electricity generator may well wish to participate in the investment of British Coal. Opportunities from the private sector should be encouraged and not prohibited under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. Licensing of coal reserves


should lie with the Department of Energy and should be given to those who wish to have a go on a competitive basis.
When British Coal decides that it wants to close a pit and abandon reserves of coal—it has done that only too often—the private sector should have the opportunity of taking that pit over and making a go of it. We know that private sector consortia — they could be mining co-operatives—would like to have a go at proving that some of the pits that British Coal has said are not economic are, indeed, profitable when run with less bureaucratic management and improved working practices. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is shouting. I hope that he will have an opportunity to shout in a moment, when I finish my speech. Perhaps he has not visited one or two of the private deep-mine pits, as I have. I can give him an example of one such pit in Stoke, which is limited to employing only 30 miners because that is all that the law allows. As a result, that mine can work only one shift. It wants to work two or three and take on another 30 or 60 miners. There are unemployed miners in the area made redundant by British Coal yet the private operator is not allowed to take them on and operate two or three shifts thus creating more coal reserves at a competitive price.
The Government still force the British coal industry to work under such artificial restrictions. The restrictions should be removed and the private sector given the chance. The coal miners made redundant by British Coal should be given a chance of alternative employment opportunities, which many of them want.
Too many pits have been closed that could have been economic. British Coal alone has decided that they are uneconomic. The opportunities for the private sector have been frustrated when they should have been opened up and liberated. The British coal industry has an enormous opportunity to compete. The new technologies such as the fluidised bed, combined heat and power, city district heating and coal gasification are contributing to electricity production and energy supply in other countries, but are not going ahead in this country because we have a monopoly that is not as efficient as it should be and restricted competition from the private sector at the edges. When the electricity industry is privatised, the opportunities will begin to open up—if British Coal takes advantage of them.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that at long last the matter is being reviewed and that the British coal industry will now be given an opportunity to participate in a future as exciting as anything that it has experienced since the industrial revolution.

Mr. Terry Patchett: I promise to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that many of my hon. Friends who have constituency interests in the debate wish to speak. One item, which is of concern to me, has cost the coal industry much more than the grant is worth. Although I welcome the assistance to the coal industry, I have grave concerns about the Government's attitude to that industry.
Although the miners have been working very hard and producing record tonnages, their morale is very low. Why? Basically it is because of the Government's lack of a clearly stated energy policy that defines their prospects. In many

cases it seems that the only reward for hard work is closures. I ask the House to remember that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in productivity. Why has there not been an increase of 60 per cent. in wages?
I am concerned that the money being contributed to the industry will be wasted by the chairman of British Coal, who seems more interested in manoeuvring trade unions into taking industrial action and using his public relations department to make the people of this country think that the unions are evil and irresponsible. In recent weeks he has successfully created unrest in a union renowned for its moderation. Like the Secretary of State, he harps on about the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, accusing him of scaremongering about the present situation in the industry and flexi-hours.
Similar charges were made by a previous chairman and by a previous Secretary of State for Energy before the 1984 strike, when Mr. Scargill referred to 70 pit closures if the strike was lost. History has proved Mr. Scargill absolutely right: there was a pit closure programme. It was a strike that Sir Ian MacGregor himself has since admitted was manipulated, just as the problems in the industry are being manipulated today.
My concern is that a great deal of money is being lost by the arrogant bloody-mindedness of the chairman of British Coal, acting on behalf of the Government, to propagate anti-trade union political dogma. He appears to be desperately trying to attain the Prime Minister's beloved Victorian values, making himself the master whom the miners may serve subject to his will and without themselves having any say.
The proof of that lies in the chairman's heartless attitude to sacked miners and his insistence on a new code of conduct in place of a well-tried and fair one, which makes the board alone the sole arbitrator.
The chairman of British Coal has sought also, without consultation, to inflict weekend rosters on the deputies' union to replace another workable procedure. He dictated a small pay rise, again without any consultation, which illustrates his masterly arrogance. He is also refusing to backdate it to November, as has always been the procedure.
How can anyone on the Government Benches fail to see that deliberate manipulation on the part of British Coal, which has a public relations department of which Goebbels would have been proud? I include in that the Secretary of State for Energy, who I assume condones the chairman's behaviour. I condemn his attitude and that of the Government in their running of an industry as vital to the nation as the coal industry. I hope that British Coal and the Department of Energy will see sense and will ensure that this financial contribution to the industry is not wasted by their attitude towards the trade unions and the nationalised industries.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and should like to place clearly on record my views concerning coal. I see coal as an important, essential and strategic national asset. I believe that we in this House, and as a Parliament and Government, have a duty to ensure that the nation maximises this great national asset.
There is no doubt that there will be differences of view and opinion as to how that should be achieved. I do not doubt the integrity of Opposition Members and of the


views that they hold. I hope they will be generous enough to accept, and will not doubt, my integrity. I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). He brings enormous experience to the House. He will not be surprised if I say that one of the lessons I have learnt is to look at the mistakes made by others and try not to repeat them.
Some of the mistakes which were made were, sadly, made under the Government in which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister. He must face that. Of the 295 pits that were closed during the stewardship of the Labour Government, not all were worn out and required closing. I accept that many of them were worn out—let me make that clear.
What I cannot understand is how Labour Members can argue that closing pits on that scale is somehow acceptable if done by a Labour Government, but that any closures under a Conservative Government are made because we have a vendetta against the coal industry. It would be an odd sort of vendetta that required the British taxpayer to pay, because it is the taxpayer who pays, not the Government. The Government use taxpayers' money, or they borrow it, as did the last Labour Government. Fortunately, the present Government have not been borrowing, but have been spending £2 million a day to modernise our pits.
If I have any comment to make in that regard, it is that our massive reserves of coal should be exploited to the maximum. If any aspect requires to be looked at in greater detail with the hope of obtaining greater rewards, it is that of opening up areas of greatest potential.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, when he talks about the Labour Government closing the pits in the 1960s, what actually happened was that the small pits were closed so that there were then super-pits in the same areas, mining the same coal? The miners from the small pits went to the super-pits, but under this Government the super-pits are closing, leaving reserves in them.

Mr. Walker: Sadly, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not an expert in the detail of these matters, but I assure him that I can understand the mathematics of investment, return on investment, productivity, and soon. Sadly, "super-pits- is a description given to something that happens to be bigger. Unfortunately, as anyone with any business experience knows, bigger does not always mean more efficient. That is one of the great tragedies.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) spoke about a substantial increase in productivity—I acknowledge that that has happened—and asked why there had not been a similar percentage increase in wages. That is the economics of the madhouse. Nobody expects to increase productivity by a given percentage and for wages to increase by a similar percentage, because it all depends on the gearing ratios. Anyone who wants to work out the mathematics in that way ought not to be promoting any industry.
As I said earlier, I see coal as an essential, strategic national asset. There are massive oportunities to produce low-cost coal. Here I have to declare an interest, because in my constituency there are companies which use electricity on a substantial scale. Because of that, they want electricity prices to be held at the most competitive level so that they can compete in world markets.
Included among those companies—although it is not the largest user, it is a big user—is the whisky industry, which employs many more people in Scotland than the coal industry. In terms of the return to the taxpayer, that of the whisky industry is massive, because the taxpayer makes no direct investment in it, unlike in the coal industry. The taxpayer enjoys a return of £1,000 million per year from the whisky industry, which is obtained through revenue and taxes.
Labour Members know that we have recently taken an extensive look at the whisky industry, because Labour Members and I have combined to bring a Bill on that subject before the House. It is an all-party Bill and we have the same interests in common. We are concerned that our whisky industry should continue to prosper and survive. When I visited the whisky research laboratories, the cost of energy was discussed on two occasions. Until then I had not realised just how important energy costs were.
Perhaps the most emotive subject with regard to employment in Scotland is the steel industry. I think that all in Scotland are united in the belief that it is essential that we continue to ensure the well-being of Ravenscraig and all its associated suppliers. It is imperative that Ravenscraig continues to receive energy at competitive prices. Indeed, that is probably the most important single area affecting coal and electricity.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ravenscraig must watch out, not for cheap coal, but for cheap steel, coming into Britain?

Mr. Walker: I happen to think that Ravenscraig—

Mr. Campbell: Answer the question.

Mr. Walker: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question, if he will only listen. One great problem, which was noticeable last night, is that Opposition Members do not want to listen. They think that they are the only ones who care. We care. We care very much about the whole of Scotland, not just about one narrow sector of it. We recognise that Ravenscraig, by its increased productivity and the way in which its work force has responded to the challenge that it has faced and to the miners' strike—we must remember that—has shown clearly that the men deserve to retain their jobs. We have a duty to ensure that the way in which coal is produced in Britain is not an impediment to the retention of their jobs.
That can be achieved through new work practices. I welcome the fact that miners at Longannet are prepared to consider the introduction of flexible working. The miners there, contrary to the advice that they are getting from some sources, recognise that their jobs can best be retained if they change to meet the changing times. The Government are prepared and willing to continue to invest taxpayers' funds on a substantial scale. No one can say that there has not been substantial investment. I am not opposed to helping any industry at any time. I am not opposed to what, in the House, are roughly called subsidies. I am opposed to a continuation of subsidies where there is no change and no willingness or preparedness for change, but where workpeople are used as an instrument to achieve political ends, whatever they may be and whoever is practising them.
No one should play God with other people's jobs and futures. No one should play God with other people's families. Anyone who imagines that the Government can


somehow create and continue to keep jobs in being on the false basis of continuous subsidies is not living in the real world. It is necessary to ensure that there is change in return for the massive investment of taxpayers' funds.
There have been substantial changes within the coal industry, on which it should be complimented. Productivity in some sectors of the industry now compares favourably with many other sectors overseas. Such returns are the only real yardstick.
The difference between the United Kingdom's coal industry and many others is that, sadly, our coal industry has been used for political ends at the sharp end of political activity. That is sad because miners, like many other tightly knit groups of people in Britain, are loyal to their mines and country, as they demonstrated effectively in two world wars. There is no question but that the mining communities have contributed handsomely to Britain's well-being. I believe that that loyalty has often been abused — [Interruption.] The problem of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is that he does not believe in anything. I speak from conviction. The hon. Gentleman does not know what he believes in and has no conviction. He persuades no one and convinces no one.
In any consideration of Scotland's coal industry, one must first acknowledge that at least half, if not more, is now opencast. The public are not concerned with how coal is obtained, but the industry is interested in the technicalities, and the experts can explain just why there is that great interest. I have a tremendous admiration for individuals who are prepared to go down the mines. It is not something that I would wish to do. I have been down a mine only once—
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, many Labour Members with vital constituency interests want to speak before 10 o'clock. Is there any way in which you can ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), garrulous as he is, to draw his remarks to a conclusion, perhaps on the basis of tedious repetition?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): What I can do is to advise the House that, with fewer interventions, more hon. Members would be called.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have attempted not to repeat myself. I have attempted to cover widely the areas of genuine concern in Scotland. There is no doubt about the genuine feelings of concern that were demonstrated by hon. Members last night. I can understand the deep feelings of the hon. Member for Midlothian. If I had his long experience of and attachment to the coal industry, I would feel as deeply about it as he does, and I respect that genuine concern and feeling. However, I have little respect for what I call the engineered feeling that one sometimes gets. I make it clear that I exclude the hon. Gentleman from that.
There is no question but that the Government have backed British coal massively since 1979, and any attempt to claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that over £8,000 million of taxpayers' funds have found their way into the coal industry in different forms. Consequently, I have no hesitation in saying that the taxpayers have every right to

expect the United Kingdom's coal industry to respond to requests for changes in work practices and for a continued increase in productivity.
Other United Kingdom industries have responded to such requests. I have mentioned the steel industry, which has shown that it can compete effectively with its overseas competitors. We can prevent steel from coming into the United Kingdom by showing that other people cannot produce steel of the quality, and at the rate and the price, that we do. I am confident that the United Kingdom's huge reserves of coal can, must and should be exploited to the benefit of the industry and the people who work in it, but, more important, to the benefit of the nation.
Miners in the high-productivity areas who are now working flexible hours and a six-day working week are enjoying substantial pay returns. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley shakes his head. I have relatives in the Nottingham area who are miners. That gives me no knowledge of the mining industry, but they tell me what they are earning and how they have paid for nice new cars, houses and so on. They have explained to me that that has happened because they have been able to increase their earnings substantially since the introduction of the new scheme. I can say only that I have seen with my own eyes how their standard of living has improved and how they want it to continue to improve. [Interruption.] I wonder whether Opposition Members ever go anywhere. I wonder whether they have been to the mining community in the Nottingham area.
I am trying to explain as well as I can that in some parts of the United Kingdom there are high-productivity pits and the individuals who work there are reaping the benefits and the rewards. I should like other parts of the United Kingdom to enjoy the same benefits and rewards, because eventually the taxpayers, the users of energy and electricity, will benefit. It is essential that our electricity industry continues to improve and to provide manufacturing industry with electricity at competitive prices.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I conclude by saying that I found yesterday's activities quite distasteful. Opposition Members were not prepared to listen to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was continually interrupted when he replied to the debate. As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, pointed out this evening, that has an effect on the debate. I also feel that it was in bad taste to suggest that somehow my right hon. and learned Friend does not care. He does care. I know that he cares.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying quite a way from the debate. Last night's debate is over. I ask him to confine his comments to this debate.

Mr. Walker: I was responding to the opening comments made by the hon. Member for Midlothian. When you, Madam Deputy Speaker, look at Hansard, you will see that the hon. Gentleman began his speech with comments about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and you will also see what occurred during the debate. I thought that I should place it on record that I believe that that was in bad taste. My right hon. and learned Friend does care. Like me, he believes that the long-term future for coal and for the energy and electricity industries lies in the two sides getting together and making sure that they can produce a viable answer. In that way, we can see a future and a way ahead.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall do my best to make a short speech in the limited time that is available, as a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
In my constituency, some working miners have been made redundant as a result of colliery closures. The Supplementary Estimate of £162 million for the industry includes a deficit grant of £100 million and a restructuring grant of £62 million. It is fair to ask why this money is needed.
The British Coal memorandum says that the money is needed because of additional colliery closures and industrial action by the NUM. I believe that it may also be needed because of the overtime ban, but I do not intend to dwell on that except to say that I think that the NUM was ill advised to take such a step. British Coal says that colliery closures are due to poor performance and prospects, to financial pressures—which I believe are as a result of phoney costings—and to deteriorating market conditions.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), for whom I have the highest regard, has said enough about subsidised imports. Suffice it to say that those imports are coming from Australia, China and Colombia. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) indicated that to some extent that is the result of slave-type labour. In other times, when we in Britain took a better moral stance, that would have been totally unacceptable.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Livsey: No. I shall not give way as there is little time available and many hon. Members wish to speak.
The question that remains is what effect that will have on the coalfield communities. In my area in Wales, two pits are to close — Abernant and the Lady Windsor colliery at Abercynon — and 1,600 jobs will be lost. Some miners from Abernant live in my constituency.
Abernant mine has some of the best anthracite in the world, and the pit is only 30 years old. It would be a travesty to close the pit because it has enormous reserves. Millions of tonnes of first-class anthracite are still in the ground at Abernant. It will not be mined because of a lack of investment and 650 men with an average age of 36 who are all family men will lose their jobs. A Welsh-speaking community which is very precious to Wales will disappear overnight.
There is also the threat of the site being used for opencast mining. That will occur because of a combination of suspicious accounting and inducements through redundancy payments to weaken the resolve of the men working in that pit. British Coal should invest in the Margam pit and give opportunities for the 900 jobs that could be created there. The attitude of the south Wales NUM has been constructive in that regard and it should be given the opportunity to open that pit and create more jobs in the south Wales coalfield. What is happening is the destruction of communities and the butchery of the south Wales coalfield by British Coal.
Do the Government have an energy strategy which includes coal? The Minister should listen to my remarks. Is there a policy which is a balanced mix between deep-mined coal, opencast coal, oil, nuclear power and alternative sources of energy? I do not believe that the Government have properly thought through their policy

at this time. The truth is that there is a reliance on imported coal. The electricity privatisation has driven a coach and horses through an energy strategy.
It is not as if the Government have merely moved the goalposts. They are beginning to saw them down as well. A short-term temporary gain in free-market coal will destroy our coalfield communities. Have the Government a conscience about the people in their prime who are being put on the scrapheap? From some of their remarks tonight, I do not think so.
Deep-mined coal should have a future lasting at least 200 years and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us assurances about that when he replies. What about the position in Scotland with coal imports and the South of Scotland electricity board and privatisation? Four thousand Scottish mining jobs are on the line and there is electricity over-capacity in Scotland. Indeed, as the Torness nuclear power station comes on stream, it will add to the problems. The nuclear industry is subsidised and more pressurised water reactors are in the pipeline. Yet coal remains less well subsidised in comparison with the nuclear industry. The loss of indigenous energy resources in the coalfields will be great as many pits are being closed.
Electricity privatisation will also put the south Wales coalfield on the line. At least 12,000 direct jobs in the industry could be affected by subsidised coal imports. We believe that opencast is a blight and destroys the environment. It also destroys communities. In our part of the world it destroys villages and even chapels.
Referring to what might be regarded as the Government's hidden agenda, as elaborated by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) how could the Ryan company in south Wales have holdings invested in it by Consolidated Goldfields, which operates in South Africa, where it has an extremely dicey reputation in employment? It could be one of the companies involved in the privatisation of British Coal once it has removed some of the uneconomic mines.
Opencast mining produces a £500 million profit. We must settle the balance between opencast and deep mining. Deep mining is labour-intensive and that remains extremely important.
The effect on communities of the loss of jobs and closures will be immense in future. Reference was made earlier to the fact that 96 pits are left. Page 21 of the Select Committee on Energy report states that the standards that British Coal employs have an
increasing emphasis on the £1·50/GJ parameter … we therefore regard British Coal's rules as robust.
There are 96 pits at present and when we consider the figures in the Select Committee report it is obvious that 36 per cent. of the coal produced in Britain costs more than £1·50 per gigajoule. That means that at least another 30 pits will close if the rules are to be applied strictly.
Underground coal reserves in Britain are immense and we believe that they should be worked. The coalfield communities believe that morale should be higher in the industry. They ask that the communities should not be destroyed and that sensible accounting methods should be used to judge the profitability of mines. Let those communities survive with collieries that pay. They should survive with support commensurate with the level of support given to subsidised coal that is now being imported into this country.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The Order Paper tells us that the Select Committee on Energy report is relevant to the debate. Apart from the speech made by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), the Chairman of the Select Committee, that report has hardly been mentioned. I will attempt to bring it to the attention of the House.
The Select Committee on Energy produced a unanimous report and there were a majority of Conservative Members on the Committee. It is constructive and I am grateful to the Select Committee Chairman for the way in which he led the debate and for his constructive speech. He told us that the Estimates were equivalent to £162,277,000. I will not go into the figures in too much detail.
We are facing the probable demise of the coal industry. I do not want to appear to be going over the top or to be over-egging the pudding, but I believe that that threat exists. Hon. Members who are familiar wih the energy debates will be aware that the White Paper on public expenditure estimated that British Coal's loss before deficit grant would he £195 million in 1987–88. The Government's latest figures have increased that significantly to more than £200 million, which is different from the £414 million to be voted by Parliament in 1987–88 for deficit grant. That difference arises from the Treasury's practice of paying money to support British Coal in both cash and accruals. The Select Committee recognised that in paragraph 3 of the report.
The Committee went on to express some concern, and concluded paragraph 4 by saying:
However, we would welcome a further indication in the debate on the Estimate from the Government of their current thinking as to whether any new legislative provision for deficit grants will be necessary before the end of the next financial year.
Surely the industry requires such information. It needs to prepare. It has not been able to do that while the mining industry has been run down in the past four years. The Select Committee has never been as confident as the chairman of British Coal that British Coal would break even by 1988–89. It says as much in the report.
As recently as 3 February, Sir Robert Haslam continued to he optimistic that British Coal would achieve that target. As the chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, Sir Robert said that three things would be necessary for British Coal to achieve it: first, the dollar should not weaken further against the pound; secondly, international coal prices should be firm; and thirdly, there should be industrial relations harmony in industry.
The House will recognise, as did the Committee, that the first two factors are outside the control of the industry. On the third one, the Committee took the view that it was not its job to become involved in the details of industrial relations, but it did not detect much flexibility or evidence of the two sides working well together. It stressed its worry about that in paragraph 5.
The problems of industrial relations are always two-sided. I speak as one with 39 years of experience of the mining industry before being privileged to come to the House. For 10 of those years I was an NUM official, and for another 10 an industrial relations officer. So I think I can claim with due modesty to have a little experience of mining and its industrial relations.
Especially since the strike, there has been little harmony between management and men. If I had the time, I could highlight many incidents of deliberate provocation. A recent example of that caused me concern. It happened at the country's major pit, Kellingley colliery. After the pit deputies' union had been to the national reference tribunal, the judge had requested both sides to go back and work normally until further investigations took place.
The manager of the pit instructed the deputies to carry out duties that increased the area of the mine for which they were responsible from 3,000 to 6,000 m. The deputies took the view, shared by their union, that such an extension of their responsibilities was an unsafe practice and could possibly put men's lives at risk. Given my experience in the industry, I agree with them. Record after record of production achievements have been gained at that pit. In the previous five weeks before the dispute it was producing 55,000 tonnes of coal per week. If the manager's instructions are not provocative and an example of bad industrial relations, I do not know what is.
Sir Robert Haslam told the Select Committee that, without good industrial relations and without the prevention of disputes, there would be further pit closures next year. He said that up to 20 pits could close. If that is the case, surely Sir Robert Haslam should first put his house in order.
The Select Committee mentioned the restructuring grants. We are all aware that colliery closures result in a need for such grants. The increased provision for those grants has been necessary because of the increased number of colliery closures. Hon. Members will be aware that that increased provision is the second increase this financial year. In 1987–88, 16 pits were closed or merged, compared with an anticipated total of five. The manpower employed has fallen by 15,000. Paragraph 6 of the report acknowledges those figures.
Sir Robert Haslam told the Committee that it was possible that there could be 20 pit closures and 15,000 jobs lost. He said that at least a handful of pits—five—would certainly be closed. As Sir Robert Haslam has said that it is possible that another 20 pits will be closed, what sort of money will be needed in grant if the pace of pit closures continues? Indeed, the Committee was mindful of other factors that could create a mass pit closure programme.
The Committee was aware of the proposed privatisation of the electricity industry and expressed certain views about it. It is well aware that the privatisation could—I am not saying that it will—be the death gong of the mining industry. Whatever fancy clothes or fancy names are given to such things it is a fact of life that, unless there is a statutory agreement between the two major industries—coal and electricity—the result could be further colliery closures.
I am not suggesting that the supply of 80 million tonnes of coal to the electricity industry will be wiped out overnight—of course not. Nevertheless, some of the demand for coal from British mines will be withdrawn and there will be imports. Unless the Government are prepared to place a statutory obligation upon both industries regarding the supply of coal there will be further pit closures. There is no need to take it from me; read what Sir Robert Haslam had to say as recently as Monday this week.
Although Sir Robert Haslam braces himself and makes noises about his optimism for the industry, which is


welcome, he goes on to warn that, without such an obligation, further job losses and pit closures will follow. We all know that, without such an obligation, the privatisation of the electricity industry will wipe out the major part of the coal industry.
Indeed, when the Select Committee was taking evidence for the previous report, Professor McClusky gave evidence to us that he forecast that mining production would be down to 60 million tonnes by 1992. It looks to me as if Professor McClusky will be right.
I shall wind up my comments as other hon. Members wish to speak. I hoped to have the opportunity of saying much more tonight, but, unfortunately, that has not been possible. I should like the Minister to say whether he will take into consideration the views and fears of the Select Committee regarding the protection of the supply of British coal to British power stations and whether he will take the advice of Sir Robert Haslam on the matter. Both the Select Committee and Sir Robert Haslam have listened to expert advice and gone into the matter in depth. Sir Robert, with his great knowledge of the industry, warns that, if there is no statutory obligation on the coal industry to supply the electricity industry in this country after privatisation, there will be no protection or future for the coal industry.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) because, like me, he is a member of the Select Committee on Energy, although I do not agree with his final words, and because the debate refers in part to the report.
Let us consider the motion upon which the debate is based. Tonight, in a quiet, civilised manner, we are having a sensible debate in which Opposition Members can put forward their fears and concerns, but it is not a major parliamentary occasion. Many hon. Members are elsewhere and yet, by the end of tonight, we shall have voted through quietly the sum of almost £136 million-worth of additional resources to British Coal. That is not an insubstantial figure and it shows the Government's commitment to the coal industry. A Government who were not committed to the coal industry would not come along here on a fairly quiet parliamentary day and ask for approval to spend £136 million just at the drop of a hat. The Government's commitment to the British coal industry is beyond dispute.
It is up to each member of the Select Committee to work out his interpretation of the Committee's conclusions. One can be in favour of a Select Committee report whether one is a Labour Member or a Conservative Member. We can all quote various parts of the report and pray those parts in aid of our own arguments. However, the report is quite clear in its conclusions and states, in paragraph 10:
The presentation of this Supplementary Estimate is an opportunity once again for the House to receive an account from Ministers of policy towards the coal industry.
We shall all look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's response to the debate.
The report continues by saying that British Coal
has made welcome improvements in productivity,"—
hon. Members on both sides of the House have noted that—

and the Committee hopes that these will continue.
However, here is the important point. The report states:
the industry's deficit and the number of closures necessary have both been considerably higher than was anticipated at the beginning of the financial year.
The Supplementary Estimate is in itself evidence of that.
We do not believe that the coal industry should be sustained whatever the cost to public funds".
That is a major conclusion of an all-party group of Members of Parliament who have deliberated on the matter. Some have brought to bear their personal experience and knowledge of the coal industry, but we have all put our signatures to that important conclusion. The report makes certain qualifications which, obviously, represent the broad consensus among Members. In it we reiterated the conclusions of our previous report that the industry's future cannot be left wholly in the invisible hands of market forces. The Government are not doing that. The fact that the Government are putting £163 million of valuable public expenditure into the industry is a clear indication that this Conservative Government recognise the difficulties facing British Coal.
However, we have to put British Coal on notice. When I first came into the House nine years ago, I represented a steel constituency and from my experience of that I know that however much a Government—whether Labour or Conservative — are willing to support an industry through difficult times, the long-term future of that industry cannot for ever be secured by or be dependent on the begging bowl approach to its problems. As we vote through this considerable sum of public expenditure, we must be sure that there is a clear prospect of British Coal being able to succeed in the future.
Nobody, least of all me, who represented the steel industry for four years in circumstances that are not dissimilar to those facing British Coal in what was the Brigg and Scunthorpe constituency, which included the steel works town, can derive any pleasure from either Labour or Conservative Governments constantly coming to the House for large sums of public expenditure, because that is not good for the long-term future of the work force in that industry.
I fully accept that Opposition Members, with their long tradition of direct involvement in the coal industry, are genuinely concerned with the future welfare of the miners working in the industry. However, from my experience during my first four or five years in this House, I advise them that eventually their mining communities will thank them, as the steel workers of south Humberside thank the Conservative Government, for ensuring that the long run for the steel industry—and for the coal industry—is not based on the ability of the industry to persuade the House of Commons to pick up the tab when there are substantial losses. The long run for those industries, and for the secure future of the miners, is dependent on their being able to participate in selling their product at a price which the customer is prepared to pay and which competes in world markets.
With the efficiency and the high quality of management in British Coal, and with the high quality of mining expertise among the miners, there is no reason why Opposition Members should fear competition. There is no reason why it should be impossible for British Coal to compete on international terms.
I remember being told eight or nine years ago, by Opposition Members who took an interest in the problems of the steel industry, "British Steel will never be capable


of facing the world environment. We will always have to protect it." That has been proved not to be the case. For the first time, I sat this morning in a Standing Committee which is bringing that industry to the full benefits of a secure future.
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say anything about this — possibly not — but if I were a miner I would look forward to the day when I, my future and that of my family, would not be dependent on the will of the House but on the abilities of the company in which I should like to have a say and be a direct owner—a shareholder. The prospects of the British coal industry are best secured in the long run in the private sector.
One day, Opposition Members who represent mining communities will come to realise, as have their colleagues who represent steel working constituencies — although they may not be able to say so—that their constituents' long-term security is best determined by a private company, answering to shareholders and customers. In that way the attitude and atmosphere will change.
British Coal does not need to fear privatisation, as sufficient coal resources are available to furnish the country's needs. The potential for opencast mining has not been fully developed. Resources are available, and it is important to recognise that we have the potential to reduce British Coal's costs by exploiting to the full the opencast resources so that we can meet the international threat. There is no use insulating ourselves from the international threat. We are a trading nation and we have proved that industries that we did not think would be profitable can be made to stand on their own, make a profit and face the international threat.
It is folly for us to say that the only role for British Coal is in the public sector, dependent upon the good will of Ministers and upon supplies of deep-mined coal. [Interruption.] I have said this many times, but unfortunately it must be emphasised time and again. I have said this about the steel industry in my constituency. It was difficult for my constituents to appreciate what I was saying, until they realised that their long-term job security was being affected.
The statistics show what has been achieved by British Coal. Since 1979 the Government have supported capital investment in the coal industry, with over £5·5 billion of public funds, and £2 billion of further support is planned for the next three years, so the Government are not turning off the tap. The industry must face up to the challenge of international competition and to the fact that its security and that of its workers ultimately will be best secured in the private sector.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): I hope that the nuclear industry can face the challenge that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said the mining industry must face with the subsidies that it gets from the Government. Until two years ago I was a miner at the coal face. It is a great privilege to be elected and to come to the House with a knowledge of the mining industry, which Conservative Members do not have. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talked as though the mining industry were a car factory, with a production line that runs all the time. Miners in the coal industry work

in the bowels of the earth, where anything can happen. Geological conditions cause constant changes, and it is not an easy industry in which to work.
About 70,000 miners have lost their jobs in the past four or five years under the Government, and 71 pits have closed. I begin to wonder why Arthur Scargill was criticised, because the man was darned well right.

Mr. Rost: He caused it.

Mr. Campbell: He was right in what he said before the strike, and he is saying it again. Sir Robert Haslam, who appeared before the Select Committee, in answer to a question about privatisation and foreign coal, said, "Well, life is uncertain." The Secretary of State for Energy said that British Coal would have to compete in the market place; in other words, on the foreign market. Foreign coal is coming in and competing with British coal, so the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will go out of the window.
We do not know what our competitors' figures are. The other week 1 asked the Secretary of State for Energy what direct subsidies or direct help foreign coal gets in South Africa, Australia, Colombia, America and Poland, and I was given a completely negative reply. When I collared him afterwards he asked me, if I got to know, to tell him. So we do not know what we are competing against.
What we do know is that deep-sea ports in this country are being changed into coal-importing ports. That is a fact. There is Fawley in Southampton, one in Bristol, one on the Mersey and two on the Humber. That sounds the death knell of the Nottingham coalfield. Once foreign coal gets a hold, once we become blind to foreign subsidies, we must be prepared to see the demise of our coal industry, because once the electricity industry is privatised it will go for the cheapest coal.
If South Africa can offer one of the electricity companies a price for the next five years that is better than British Coal can match, that will be the demise of nine to 10 pits in Nottingham and Yorkshire, making 20 in all. It will be the demise of all industry in the north-east and in Scotland as well. That is the danger facing the coal industry.
Another danger is that which is faced when a country destroys its own industry and is left in the hands of its foreign competitors, just as we were left in the hands of the Arabs during the oil crisis. We relied on oil, and Joe Gormley said that the Arabs would not always live in tents. We ignored him, to our cost, because up went the price.
The same will happen with the coal industry, because men cannot go back to a pit once it has been closed. Our foreign competitors will put up the price, and then we shall see what the cost of electricity will be to the consumer in this country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I know that a number of hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, want to speak and I am rising at this point because last week I was left by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with three minutes in which to answer a three-hour debate. If I am not provoked, I shall attempt to sit down before 10 o'clock to give some other hon. Members a chance to join in the debate.
The Government welcome the attention given by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the members of the Select Committee on Energy, and indeed by hon. Members generally, to the finances of the coal industry. The finances are characterised, as the Select Committee has commented, both by their weakness and by the unsatisfactory nature of past forecasts of outturn. For reasons that I shall give in a moment, I cannot guarantee the validity of present forecasts. I can, however, give a firm statement of intent. I can also illustrate the consequences of failure to meet the targets that we have set.
There is no doubt that, as has been said, a great deal of taxpayers' money has been spent during the lifetime of this Government on the British coal industry. Expenditure of £9 billion in nine years is a rate of spend far higher than that of any other Administration.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Minister has mentioned subsidies. Can he tell us what subsidies are paid by our competitors?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the figures are not available for subsidies outside the Common Market. However, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) pointed out, other Common Market countries such as West Germany give higher subsidies to their coal industries.
We do not model ourselves on the West Germans. The West German industry is increasingly looking to this country as a way of getting its coal industry out of the mess that it is in. There is no question of comparing ourselves with the countries mentioned by the hon. Member for Midlothian in determining our future policy on this great industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant asked where it would all end. That is a pertinent question, which, I believe, was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). There is no doubt that this cannot continue indefinitely, especially if those employed in the industry, and those who lead them—through misplaced ideology or a mistaken appreciation of the strength of their position—repay the taxpayer with go-slows, overtime bans, marches to commemorate past strikes, as at Kellingley colliery yesterday, and a refusal to work properly the new equipment with which they have been provided. All that has this year cost British Coal £100 million in lost operating profit—enough to develop the new pit at Margam.
Yes, we will allow a privatised electricity supply industry to buy coal in the best markets, for two reasons: first, because we will not come between the electricity supply industry and its customers who want cheap electricity; and, secondly, because, having put vast sums into the coal industry and knowing that the industry is investing £650 million a year, we are confident that, if its employees so will, it can stand on its own feet against all comers.
We do not share the pessimism of Opposition Members. Hon. Members should contrast the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Mr. Rost), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes with any speech from the Opposition. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash and for Brigg and Cleethorpes, for instance, talked of the prospects for

British Coal to improve its costs so as to be able to compete in the world market. By contrast, the hon. Member for Midlothian, with his deep and highly respected knowledge of the industry, seemed to be saying that it was all hopeless, and the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) — whose knowledge is massive—talked of the industry's probable demise.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister says, and I agree with him, that British Coal can compete against all comers, provided that the all corners are competing on the same basis. The Minister has already admitted that he is completely unaware of the subsidies given to the coal industry in all the countries outwith the Community. Some of my hon. Friends have said that in South Africa it is slave labour, and in Colombia it is child labour. That is not fair competition, but it is the kind of competition that the Minister is forcing British Coal to fight with its hands tied behind its back. Will the Minister not concede that?

Mr. Spicer: This country imports a minuscule amount of coal from the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred. From South Africa, for instance, we are talking about 200,000 tonnes of coal, against a total rising to hundreds of millions of tonnes.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister say what the subsidies are in Australia, the United Stated of America, China and Poland? He admitted earlier that he was not aware of them. We are not proposing to import minuscule amounts of coal from those countries.

Mr. Spicer: This country substantially supports and subsidises its coal industry and imports a minuscule amount of coal from other countries. Therefore, it is capable of competing fairly against those countries. If it proves to be the case that there is unfair competition, the Government will take that matter seriously and will deal with it. At present, the industry is faced with little import competition.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Spicer: I should like to get on with my speech; otherwise other hon. Members will not have a chance to speak.
British Coal—this is the reason for our optimism—has vast commercially mineable coal reserves and all the advantages—perhaps this is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—of proximity to power stations that are enjoyed by other indigenous coal industries in the world. It is also serviced by the finest mining engineering in the world.
Coal, so far as it is possible to foresee, will continue well into the next century to fuel most of the electricity generated in this country. The cards are stacked in favour of British Coal, if only its workers will play them.
The Government demand that the industry should begin to pay its own way without a continuation of the present massive support of the taxpayer, about which the Energy Select Committee is understandably showing increasing concern.
We expect British Coal to break even in 1988–89 after payment of interest, and after that to generate increasing profits and cash flow to fund a greater proportion of its capital investment programme.
Having said that, we recognise that there are factors affecting the industry that are hard to predict. For instance, the need to meet competition from imported coal and other forms of energy will no doubt involve price concessions on a scale that cannot be forecast with certainty. Since April 1986, British Coal has had to reduce its prices by more than £500 million. Contrary to a belief of the Select Committee, that reflects the fact that British Coal is free to reduce prices to maintain market share.
A fair criticism has been made by the Committee that some estimates of British Coal's sales revenue have erred on the side of optimism. The Department of Energy frequently discusses that matter with British Coal. It is a fact of life that the coal market is volatile and uncertain, as is the market for bulk sea freight.
There is also uncertainty about costs. In recent years, British Coal has consistently increased productivity to record levels, reaching over 4 tonnes per man shift in December, and it has redoubled its efforts to reduce costs. Among other things, that has required the acceleration of the closure of high-cost capacity. It is expected that by the end of March there will be 96 pits in production, compared with 110 at the start of the year.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a brave fist of distinguishing between pit closures under a Labour Government and those under a Conservative Government. The main difference between the two is that there were 285 closures under the Labour party and 127 under the Conservative party. I have a list that begins with "A" Winning and ends with Ynyscedwyn. I would not be able to complete my speech if I were to read out the long list of names. In the interests of clarity, I shall place in the Library the list of pits closed under Labour. It will clarify the matter once and for all.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Let me tell you why the pits were closed in those days and start with my own pit as an example. I want you to listen carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must refer to the hon. Member and not to me.

Mr. Campbell: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is getting me confused.
My pit, Bates's colliery, was classed as a super-pit and around it were three small pits or little holes in the ground, as we called them. They were closed under the Labour Government, and all the men were transferred to the big super-pit, where we worked the seams that they were working. The idea was to cut the costs, as Conservative Members have been saying all night. We were closing the small pits to make super-pits. Now this Government are closing the super-pits.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member has had a good try and a good run, but the fact is that his reasoning behind the closure of pits is really the same as ours, or British Coal's reasoning. It has to do with the increased efficiency and productivity of the industry.
The idea that there is some kind of immorality about the Conservatives closing 30 per cent. of the pits and some kind of morality about Labour closing 70 per cent. of pits eventually gets down our throats.
This accelerated restructuring has led to an additional depreciation charge of £150 million during the year, of which over £50 million has arisen in the past two months.
We have discussed on three recent occasions in Adjournment debates Seafield, Wooley/Redbrook and Abernant. In each case the main factors were a combination of unexpected geological factors—and this is an answer to the hon. Gentleman — and difficult industrial relations, which is a euphemism. The write-off of Woolley/Redbrook alone accounts for some £70 million, which is nearly half of the extra charge this year.
Associated with these closures has been a policy of voluntary redundancy, which has contributed to an expected fall in manpower of over 20,000 between March 1987 and March 1988. As the Select Committee said, the cost of these redundancies has required the use of a significant proportion of the existing £750 million of restructuring grant facilities.
However, some of the redundancies this year arose out of an acceleration of events that would have come about anyway — for example, through the exhaustion of reserves. I see no need for further legislative provision for restructuring grants, although the position will be kept under review.
Returning to the deficit for the current year, the other major factor that has affected it has been industrial action by the NUM and, latterly, by NACODS. That has caused a loss of production of over 3·5 million tonnes and lost operating profits of more than £100 million. These losses were certainly not predictable when the Estimates for 1987–88 were prepared. In partial answer to the Select Committee on the matter of inaccurate estimates, it is not right to seek the approval of the House for expenditure on Votes for anything other than reasonably certain expenditure.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Spicer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he is wiping out the opportunity for other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Foulkes: Unpredictable expenditure is an important matter. If the Secretary of State for Scotland does not intervene in the dispute between SSEB and British Coal and that results, as has been widely predicted by British Coal, in the closure of at least three deep mines, would not all the redundancy payments and extra cost involved be a catastrophe for Scotland and for British Coal and its finances? Therefore, does the Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, who is sitting beside him, believe that it is the view of the Department of Energy, as the coal ministry—my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said this before—that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a duty to intervene to get the dispute resolved so that the SSEB can use British coal rather than coal from overseas?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman makes a point on behalf of one of the sides which are discussing the issue. Each has its own interests which it feels are in the public interest.

Mr. Foulkes: What about the national interest?

Mr. Spicer: That point was made last night. The atmosphere was inflamed—synthetically, I expect. When the question of a trade-off between the interests of the coal industry and the interests of the electricity consumer, particularly Ravenscraig which is a major employer, was


discussed, there was uproar on the Opposition side. I still cannot understand what motivated it because there is a balance of interests.
Of course, it is understandable that the respective organisations and institutions representing the differing interests should be in discussion and should debate with each other. The point was made yesterday by a number of Ministers, including myself, that we would prefer the two interests to be sitting at a table discussing the matter rather than fighting each other in the courts and in the press. Surely that is common between us. To say that there is only one interest involved cannot be true.

Mr. Foulkes: I accept that. Of course there are interests on both sides, but because it has been fought in the courts and in the press it is difficult to get people round the table. Things have been said which perhaps would have been better not said. Surely in the national interest the Minister responsible has not just a right but a duty to try to get the parties together, even if it means appointing a conciliator or using the Government's good offices, to try to get an agreement in the interests of Scottish industry and Scottish miners. Does the Minister agree?

Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely that things have been said which people will regret and, I suspect, very much so on the Opposition side. I am sure that chickens will come home to roost for Opposition Members who are intent on inflaming the issue; that is what they are doing, a little synthetically in view of the conflicting interests which undoubtedly exist. When will Members from Scotland or elsewhere defend the consumer of electricity and saying that his interest should be paramount? How can Opposition Members say that on one occasion and on another occasion jump up with almost orchestrated violence, as was the case last night—[Interruption.] What will we do about it? We will encourage the two sides to discuss the matter and to come to a reasonable agreement which is in the interests of both. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foulkes: I think that the Minister has been very helpful. What I understand him to say is that he wants the two sides to come together to get an agreement which ensures that the SSEB continues to purchase Scottish coal. Is that what the Minister says?

Mr. Spicer: No, I was not saying that precisely, because that would be an unbalanced view. What I am saying is that there are interests on both sides. Certainly it is in the interests of British Coal to sell its coal to a customer. It is in the interests of the electricity supplier to make sure that he buys the coal at a rate which gives the best possible price for his electricity to the consumer. Those are two conflicting views. I am saying nothing peculiar or exceptional when I say that we would like the two sides to be talking to each other and trying to find a common position.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last night—that the crucial point is the steel industry in Scotland and the future of Ravenscraig? It is vital that we are not taken in by the synthetic interest of the Opposition, who will scream if anything happens to Ravenscraig.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well, and I agree with him. He has reminded me of a point that he made in his excellent speech—in which he spoke as the authentic voice of Scotland. At one point he said that parts of the coal industry were now engaged in flexible working and that if more of the industry was engaged in flexible working it would find it easier to become competitive, north or south of the border.
In that context, I have to say that unfortunately we do not know of anyone currently working flexible hours, although there has been some talk of flexible working north of the border. That is a problem; there is no question about it. The fact that the industry and those who work in it are apparently unwilling fully to utilise the equipment provided for them at the taxpayers' expense is a matter of great seriousness to anyone who wishes the industry well for the future.
Supplementary Estimates are the vehicle provided by Parliament for obtaining funds for expenditure that could not reasonably be foreseen when the Main Estimates were submitted. The financial effects of possible industrial action cannot be included in the Main Estimates. They are rightly a matter for a Supplementary Estimate.
The Select Committee raised a number of other points about future Estimate provisions and the financing of British Coal. As the House knows, the full amount of deficit grant available under the Coal Industry Act 1987 will be paid out this year, subject to approval of the relevant Supplementary Estimate. There is therefore no statutory authority for further provision of deficit grant.
Looking ahead, it seems to us that as long as the industry avoids gratuitous and damaging industrial action, British Coal has a realistic prospect of breaking even in 1988–89. Of course there are risks that it will not do so—for instance, as the hon. Member for Midlothian said, if international coal prices or the value of the dollar fall further. On the other hand, the restructuring and cost reductions undertaken in this financial year will enhance the prospects of break-even in 1988–89.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant I would point out that if the corporation breaks even, the question of fresh legislative provision for deficit grant in next year's Main Estimates does not arise. Nevertheless, the Government very much take the point made by the Select Committee in this context and will continue to keep the financing of British Coal under careful review.
I must emphasise that the Government will not continue to provide funds indefinitely, irrespective of circumstances. The current rate of capital expenditure in the industry cannot continue unless fuller use is made of the existing equipment. The refusal of certain trade union leaders to consider modern methods of flexible working and their senseless industrial actions are jeopardising the industry's prospects and their members' jobs. [Interruption.] Opposition Members need to be reminded of that time and time again. [Interruption.]
I have told Opposition Members time and again that this Government have put more money into the industry than any other. To say that we do not care is a distortion of the facts, which the Government cannot accept. Having put that money behind the industry, we believe that it is about time that the industry and those who work in it accepted that backing for what it is and started to make full use of it.

Mr. Patchett: How much of the money given by the Government has been spent on redundancies rather than on the industry?

Mr. Spicer: I have been through the figures last week and this week. Of course, of the restructuring grant element, which is only one element, a large amount has gone on redundancies. But £650 million has been put into investment this year alone.
A sound thriving future faces British Coal. Apparently, the Opposition do not believe that. I agree entirely that our reserves of coal constitute a great national asset. That is why we have put so much of the taxpayer's money on the table. It is now up to those who work in the industry to allow the machinery which has been bought for them to be fully worked to the benefit of the industry, the country and themselves.

The Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and order this day.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates, 1987–88 (Class IV, Vote 3 and Class VI, Vote 1).

Class IV, Vote 3

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection and certain other services.

Class VI, Vote I

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,277,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on assistance to the coal industry including grants to the British Coal Corporation and payments to redundant workers.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.) and order of 3 March.

ESTIMATES, 1987–88 (ARMY), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1988 an additional number not exceeding 8,000 all ranks be maintained for the Individual Reserves.

ESTIMATES, 1987–88 (AIR), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1988 an additional number not exceeding 800 all ranks be maintained for the Royal Air Force Reserve.

ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (NAVY), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1989 a number not exceeding 69,100 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (ARMY), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1989 a number not exceeding 179,450 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 112,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 85,150 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (AIR), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1989 a number not exceeding 96,700 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 8,000 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 2,260 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1987–88

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,311,899,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for the Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 284 and 341.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1986–87

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £48,461,353·69, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1987, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 282.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the four foregoing resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates, 1987–88 and to Estimates, Excesses, 1936–87 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL

Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1987 and 1988: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

General Assistance Grants (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move,
That the draft General Assistance Grants (Abolition) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
The purpose of the draft order is to abolish the standard capital grants scheme by the repeal of part IV of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982. Under this order grants are payable towards new fixed asset investment undertaken by businesses engaged in qualifying activities—in practice most manufacturing sectors—in Northern Ireland. The standard capital grants scheme is similar, although not identical, to the regional development grants scheme in Great Britain.
As announced in the recent Department of Trade and Industry White Paper, the regional development grants scheme will also be abolished, and indeed the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill has received its Second Reading and has just completed its Committee stage. Under the provisions contained in that Bill, no new applications for regional development grant will be accepted after 31 March 1988. Similarly, the draft order now before the House provides that standard capital grants will not be payable in respect of expenditure incurred after 31 March 1988.
We have been concerned for some time about the appropriateness of the standard capital grants scheme as a means of assisting industry in Northern Ireland. Indeed, my predecessor announced significant changes to the scheme in 1985 and made it clear at that time that those amendments marked only the beginning of a change in emphasis in the form of support to industry in Northern Ireland.
Our concerns related particularly to the high degree of deadweight and displacement that we saw in the scheme. Deadweight in a scheme means that the investment would have taken place in the company without the grant being made available to it, and displacement is a technical term that means that the Government are subsidising companies to compete with others in the local market. We saw a high degree of deadweight and displacement in the scheme, evidence of deliberate abuse from some quarters and the fact that the legislation for the scheme restricted its application to manufacturing industry in a rigid manner which took no account of the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between manufacturing and service activities.
We therefore commissioned a consultancy survey of standard capital grant recipients to assess awareness of the scheme and to obtain more detailed information about the nature, objectives and impact of the investment being assisted. The survey showed that about 70 per cent. of assisted projects would have proceeded in the absence of standard capital grant and revealed that the grant has largely aided Northern Ireland companies to compete against one another in a limited local market, rather than encouraging them to compete in markets outside the Province. These findings, together with the fact that the grant is not job-related, demonstrated that the standard

capital grants scheme is no longer an effective means of stimulating the Northern Ireland economy and therefore does not make the best use of public resources.
While there are several differences in form and effect between the standard capital grants scheme in Northern Ireland and the regional development grants scheme in Great Britain, the decision to end the regional development grants scheme was based on similar conclusions about its effectiveness. This reflects a general and international trend away from automatic and poorly targeted capital grants.
On 12 January I announced the Government's decision to close the standard capital grants scheme in respect of capital expenditure incurred after 31 March, subject to parliamentary approval of the draft order currently before the House.
Northern Ireland, like its competitor regions, will concentrate increasingly on assisting strategic business developments that help companies to perform more successfully in national and international markets. The assistance will go beyond aid for capital investment and will develop the human capital of business through, for example, marketing, management and product quality development.
Together with existing selective assistance from the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the new forms of assistance will ensure that business in Northern Ireland continues to have the most comprehensive system of support to industry and enterprise in the United Kingdom. Public funds will be used more effectively on strategic business developments and on those firms which can compete with producers outside Northern Ireland.
Many companies which would otherwise have claimed standard capital grant will now turn to the Industrial Development Board or the Local Enterprise Development Unit for assistance, and those good projects which would not go ahead without assistance from Government will be eligible for consideration. I am satisfied that the revised framework for assistance will strengthen industry and enterprise in Northern Ireland.
I confirm that there is no wavering in the Government's determination to have the strengthening of the economy of Northern Ireland as one of their highest priorities. Subject only to the overriding requirement to work for an improvement in law and order, the improvement of the Northern Ireland economy remains our highest priority.

Mr. Jim Marshall: We welcome the Minister's statement on the need to continue to encourage and promote economic development in Northern Ireland. The whole House shares the concern about the high levels of unemployment and poverty in the Province. The only way to overcome that is by containing, and eventually defeating, terrorism and unrest, and by the promotion of a healthy authority in the Province.
I should like to take up a couple of issues which the Minister mentioned. He referred to the terms deadweight and displacement. I was certainly pleased to hear his definition of those terms. I found it difficult to find definitions in the summary that the Department of Economic Development gave me on the report by Coopers and Lybrand to which the Minister referred.
In regard to deadweight, the Minister said that 70 per cent. of the investment which benefited under the standard


capital grant scheme would have taken place anyway. Even with my lack of knowledge of arithmetic, that leaves a substantial percentage—30 per cent.—on which no comment was made. Are we to believe that the 30 per cent. would not have gone ahead without the standard capital grant? If it had not proceeded, what further disadvantageous effects would that have had on the Northern Ireland economy?
I want to press the Minister further on his remarks about strategic business developments. I accept the need for greater targeting and selectivity in grants, but will he develop further his ideas and concepts about strategic business developments?
The Minister and the House will be pleased to know that we do not intend to divide the House. We are saddened by the demise of the standard capital grant system. My view and that of the Labour party can best be summed up by the announcement of the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland on 12 January 1988:
We are saddened to note that an old friend which has served the Northern Ireland economy well for many years is to he wiped out … The impact of the standard capital grant scheme has been very significant. Standard capital grant has supported development of many new manufacturers, helped existing companies expand and has been supportive of re-equipping much of Ulster's industry.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the removal of standard capital grants will convey to the few people who would consider investing in Northern Ireland the idea that Northern Ireland is less attractive now than it once was? Is it not imperative that the Minister and the IDB ensure that the message goes abroad loud and clear that selective financial assistance will more than compensate?

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to give my assurance to the hon. Gentleman on that point. I intend to press the Minister further on that later. There is a need to assure prospective investors in the Province and prospective investors throughout the world that the Government mean to assist investment within the Province.
I hope to receive an assurance from the Minister when he replies that the abolition of standard capital grant in no way undermines the Government's desire to continue to invest in the Province. I want an assurance that the Government will ensure that the level of financial investment available is not reduced as a consequence of the abolition of SCG. I share the hon. Gentleman's belief in the need to convey that opinion throughout the world so that we can provide encouragement and so further bolster the Province's economy.
We share the sadness felt by the CBI in Northern Ireland. However, we are prepared to reconsider the evidence which shows that the SCG system has obvious limitations and that refinements are needed in the grant system in the North of Ireland.
The order is the analogous legislation for the Province to the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill to which the Minister referred earlier, which applies to Great Britain. While we will permit the order to pass without a Division, we strenuously oppose the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill. We are convinced that the existing level of industrial assistance in the Province and the reasonably high levels of public financial support for industry there mean that there is a clear difference between the Government's commitment to economic development in the North of Ireland and their

view of the need to encourage further industrial development in the less well-off regions of Great Britain. That is why we shall not oppose the order.
Before we permit the demise of the standard capital grant system the House should again be made aware of the contribution that that system has made to the economy of the North of Ireland. Since 1982, about £250 million has been injected into the economy in support of fixed capital investment. That is a large sum of tremendous significance, in view of the fragility of the economy The Minister should also bear in mind that figures show that the return on invested capital in the North of Ireland is substantially lower than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The existence of standard capital grant, and, I hope, its successor, will overcome the reluctance of entrepreneurs, because of the return on capital, to invest in the Province. We must ensure that there is enough return on capital to encourage inward investment.
We accept some of the criticisms of standard capital grant, of which I shall mention three. The first relates to Government decisions over the past two or three years. The decision to cut the rate and scope of grant in 1985, and again in 1987, greatly reduced its potential impact on encouraging investment. Secondly, we understand and accept the reservations expressed on all sides of industry, and particularly by the trade unions in Northern Ireland, to the effect that the standard capital grant system is not the most efficient use of public resources for industrial development. In particular, we accept the criticisms of the system that relate to its limited value as a stimulus for the creation of net additional jobs, because of its nondiscriminatory nature.
Thirdly, the shortcomings of the scheme are confirmed in the report by Coopers and Lybrand, to which the Minister referred. Apparently, the report finds that the standard capital grant system has done little to encourage import substitution or stimulate exports, and that much of the investment would have been undertaken in any case. I think that that is the displacement that the Minister mentioned. We accept that these criticisms highlight the disadvantage of non-targeted, non-specific financial assistance.
I was grateful, as I have said, to receive a summary of the report, but I wish the Minister would relent on his insistence not to publish a full report. If we are all to he convinced of the need for change and of the statistical value of the report, it is essential that it be published in full and that hon. Members be aware of its findings, the methodology on which it is based and the assumptions and statistics on which it arrives at its conclusions. I press the Minister again to place a copy of the report in the Library so that all hon. Members can read it in full.
Turning to the future, we realise that there are advantages in having an industrial strategy that gives greater emphasis to development effort. We also recognise that the potential stimulus to the economy can be much greater with selective financial assistance and the setting and achieving of agreed expansion plans and employment levels. In that regard and in common with the Government, we recognise the achievement of the industrial development board and NEDO.
Given the need for further capial investment and in the light of the relatively low return on capital in the Province, will the Minister consider retaining the standard capital grant in certain industrial sectors where firms have proven their export capabilities and potential? The Minister may


recall that I put that question to him in our written submission on the draft order. The Minister kindly replied to it as well as to other questions, but I believe that he was rather negative. Perhaps with a little further prodding and encouragement he may yet see the need and desire to continue some form of standard capital grant for those areas of the economy that have shown that deadweight and displacement are not the main reasons for the distribution of that grant. I hope that I can elicit an answer from the Minister about that.
We believe that if we are to get the best out of the economy of the North of Ireland, it is essential that the work force of the Province, through their trade unions, should be involved in the decisions and discussions that are allied to the dispersal of the new selective financial assistance. I asked the Minister about that in our written submission and I have already received a reply from him, but, needless to say, I am not satisfied.
The Minister said that the trade unions are involved through the Industrial Development Board, but we believe that that involvement should be extended so that trade unions are able to make representations on behalf of their members in small firms. We believe that it is in the interests of the work force and the trade unions for the selective assistance to succeed. We believe that there is a greater likelihood of success if the work forces are directly involved in the negotiations.
Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept my argument, and even if he gives a negative answer to my question, he must accept that the work force of the Province have most to lose from the failure of the Government's economic strategy there. Therefore, as they have most to lose or most to gain, I believe that it is only fair and proper that their voices should be heard at all levels of negotiations.
In common with the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) I must press the Minister further regarding the level of financial assistance that will be given on investment. I have pressed the Minister on this matter before and he has been somewhat equivocal. It would be dreadful for the North of Ireland if, as a result of the passage of the order, the level of capital investment in the Province was diminished.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House and Northern Ireland that the order and the abolition of the standard capital grant system will not result in a reduction in the global sum of money available for industrial development in Northern Ireland. Such development is of paramount importance if we are to encourage further investment in Northern Ireland.
We believe that the Minister should use the opportunity to provide the House with an unequivocal statement on this matter. The people of Northern Ireland and the elected Members from Northern Ireland deserve nothing less.

Mr. William Ross: It appears that an order a night is becoming the standard for Northern Ireland, as we debated another Northern Ireland order last night. In that debate, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whom I am glad to see has joined us, said that, because Labour Members had

opposed the parallel legislation for Great Britain, they had to stay and oppose the corresponding order for Northern Ireland.
The House will appreciate that I listened with some surprise to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) when he said that the Labour party would not oppose this order. As I understand it, from a perusal of the debate and of the voting list on 25 January, when the almost parallel legislation for Great Britain was discussed, 212 Labour Members voted in force against it. Although we were grateful for Labour Members' support last night, we should be even more grateful if they would support us on every occasion by opposing legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole, as is their duty as a national party.
As the House will appreciate, we are here purely and simply because of the misrule, or direct rule, under which Northern Ireland suffers. When I compare the situation of Northern Ireland today, in every aspect, with that which prevailed 16 years ago, I confess that I do not see much improvement. Indeed, I see a great deal of movement in the other direction. That is the clearest proof possible of how sadly the present system of government has failed.
The order is important. It should be a Bill. I would have preferred a United Kingdom Bill, so that we could probe the matter, in conjunction with other hon. Members who represent the rest of the kingdom, but if the legislation for Northern Ireland is so different that it cannot be encompassed in a United Kingdom Bill, there is no good reason why there should not be a Northern Ireland Bill for it. We would have an opportunity to contribute to that debate, just as I am at present participating in the debate in Committee—on a Bill that affects Britain but not Northern Ireland.
The Minister knows perfectly well that he cannot change a jot or tittle of the order. If he managed to persuade the House that the final date should have been 31 December 1987, or that it should be 31 December 1988, the Minister simply could not do anything about it. He would be completely stuck. If we had a Bill which dealt with all the nuances and problems, such an exploration in depth might have been sufficient to change his mind. However, that would be difficult, as the Government are not normally ruled by reason and logic. Despite the failures of the direct rule system, they continue to pursue the wrong policy.
I recently had an interesting conversation on a plane journey between Washington and Minneapolis-St. Paul with an American business man, who said that it did not matter two balls of blue what monetary inducements were offered. He said that the only thing that mattered was whether there was terrorism. He could not see many people shoving a great deal of money into Northern Ireland until that problem was resolved.
That is a matter with which the Government have steadfastedly refused to deal in the manner in which they dealt with it the other day, when another part of the British Crown colonies and dominions was affected. The Government must forsake the mistaken policies that they have pursued hitherto and get on with governing Northern Ireland properly.
After all, Mr. Haughey has recently made it perfectly plain that the Irish Republic has given the thumbs down to a devolved Government, so what is the point of trying to flog a dead horse to life? After all, the Government have now put themselves in the hands of that Government to a large extent in matters relating to the constitutional


position of Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is no point in trying to pursue these matters in direct opposition to Mr. Haughey's view that they should not come into operation at all.
I think that I have spoken for long enough on this matter, for I see no reason to help the Government in their efforts to put across the appearance of democracy, fair play and discussion by the procedure that we have followed so consistently for 16 years. This whole thing is a farce. It mocks and diminishes democracy, and the sooner that it is done away with the better. I see no point in, and have no intention of, trying to put clothes on this naked Government when it comes to legislation for the reduction of grants for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Once again, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, it is now the hour for Northern Ireland debates. I am getting used to speaking and thinking on my feet at this hour of the night. However, at least tonight we are spared the 39 pages of detailed legislation, the five schedules and the rest, because all that we are dealing with is paragraph 3, which is two lines. That is a simple thing to deal with when compared with the tremendous difficulty that we had with last night's legislation.
I intend to devote my remarks entirely to the subject at hand rather than to the constitutional and political issues of Northern Ireland. I suppose that the order is not unexpected in the wake of the changes in legislation that occurred in Great Britain earlier in the year. However, it is significant that the thought processes that have produced the Minister's introductory proposals seem to be those that have been fostered in many agencies in Northern Ireland over the past 12 to 18 months.
It is significant, for instance, that the Department of Economic Development produced a document entitled "Pathfinder" which has been adopted as a child by LEDU—the Local Enterprise Development Unit—and peddled with great courage and enthusiasm. It contains the ethos and the thinking behind the abolition of the standard capital grant for Northern Ireland. Indeed, it removes what is probably the only major remaining differential in grant aid between Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. That means that an area that, because of its endemic and gross unemployment, was previously treated with some favour or encouragement in the way of extra grant is now having another prop removed from it.
The Minister's argument and presentation seem to be that the effectiveness of the standard capital grant is nonexistent. I suggest that he considers the consensus of industry and manufacturers in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) quoted the Confederation of British Industry. I am not used to quoting the CBI but I go back earlier than did my hon. Friend.
When the Government were changing the rate from 20 per cent. to 12·5 per cent., the consensus in the CBI was that that was
nothing short of crazy and destructive".
It also stated:
Over the years, the SCG scheme has been used to install the most modern machinery available. This has enabled Northern Ireland to turn in excellent productivity figures. This process must not be halted. This decision"—
that decision was to reduce the grant to 12·5 per cent., not tonight's decision to reduce it to zero—

now reduces the capital grant rate below that available elsewhere. From today"—
certainly from tonight—today, then, was 13 October 1987—
Northern Ireland is less attractive to investors in comparison with other development regions".
That is the consensus of manufacturing and engineering industries in Northern Ireland. We should take seriously the fact that that reduction was described as "nothing short of crazy".
I have a copy here of a letter dated, 26 November 1987 sent by the chairman of the CBI, Harold A. Ennis, to the Minister commenting on the proposed changes. Some comments made tonight have been relatively selective and I shall select the counter-arguments in the same paper.
The CBI did a survey of its membership and it was placed against a survey done by the Department of Economic Development. It reached, strangely enough, exactly opposite results and it makes a number of comments by way of example. It says:
Four companies reported that investments totalling £1·8m were under serious threat due to reduction in Standard Capital Grant and another has cancelled a planned investment of £533,000.
Again, comparing the Department's figures with its own survey, it says:
Whichever of our figures presents a truer picture, the fact remains that the companies having to find the extra 7½ per cent."—
now 25 per cent.—
will be in weaker financial position to respond to other demands.
It goes on to point out that the main thrust of the Minister's and the Department's argument was that SCG was not job-targeted, but SFA — selective financial assistance—was no more targeted to job creation than SCG was.
That is the CBI's considered opinion, and the Department should be looking at not the creation of jobs coming out of the particular one-off grant-aid investment, but the totality of jobs coming out of the general basis of grant that is being applied.
The Minister referred to the fact that selective financial assistance would be managed through the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. What has been said now is that, instead of being entitled to grant to assist production costs, employment ratios, and so on, schemes will have to be prepared and submitted to the IDB. But that can take up to two years. The norm is about 12 months, but it can take up to two years. Even small industries cannot work in that way. And even then the applicant is subject to vetting and interpretation. The CBI perceives that there would be a considerable amount of what it calls "non-qualification" of applicants.
If we examine the type of industry in Northern Ireland generally, forgetting for a moment the major industries—the shipbuilding and the engineering in Belfast and Derry—we are talking mainly of a work ethos which is small industry, with four or five to 10 employees, perhaps 20 at the outside, scattered in the rural countryside which comprises most of Northern Ireland. These are the people who the Government say are going to produce jobs; this is the area in which we are to get a decrease in unemployment. But it is precisely the small industry that is under attack through the withdrawal of SCG. The small


man will have little time and little ability to do cash flows and balance sheet forecasts into the next millennium, as is sometimes required.
For the Minister to say that industry in Northern Ireland will be assisted by the redirection of the funds released from SCG into research and development and marketing is all very well, but it will be even less job-oriented than the present system.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: If the hon. Gentleman came from an area such as mine in the west midlands, he would know that Northern Ireland gets five times the amount of help per person that we do, so why do the Northern Irish go on whining as they do?

Mr. McGrady: I apologise if I was whining. I thought that I was just stating facts. I am not aware of the economic statistics relating to the hon. Gentleman's constituency; I can only talk about life as I know it in Northern Ireland. The figures are there to show, for Department after Department, social deprivation, unemployment and the consequences of terrorism. All are indicators. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, he should read the report of the Adjournment debate on 24 February, where he will see a significant number of factors that make Northern Ireland an area that requires particular assistance.
I have mentioned in other debates the requirement of extra money for the IDB. In an area that is acknowledged to have the worst housing conditions in Europe, budgets are reduced to such an extent that the automatic cost will be 3,000 jobs in the next year. We can add to that the unknown number of jobs that will be lost through budget cuts to health and social services, with ward and hospital closures. The current 21 or 22 per cent. unemployment figure will no doubt shoot up dramatically.
This seems a very regressive step towards helping industry in Northern Ireland to recover. I know that—as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has said—my words will not change the Government's attitude, or the legislation, by one iota. However, I feel that the withdrawal of subsidies, coupled with other factors—such as the 9·2 per cent. increase in electricity prices about to be imposed in Northern Ireland, for no good reason—will impose a considerable burden on a struggling economy.
Apparently, I have caused annoyance by my repeated references to the high unemployment rate, for which I make no apology. That high unemployment will be exacerbated by this problem.
When the legislation goes through—as it obviously will—I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a better method of applying the funds available. Perhaps it would be possible to help the people I am talking about by providing an extra job or two—not 200 jobs—in a way that will cut out the massive bureaucracy involved in going through LEDU and the IDB. Perhaps a compromise scheme between SCG and the new financial assistance is possible. I ask the Minister to consider it as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Viggers: I shall try to respond to the points that have been made during this short but significant debate.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has studied the abolition of selective grant in some depth, and we have been in correspondence about it. The hon. Gentleman asked: if 70 per cent. of investments using standard capital grant would have been made anyway, what about the 30 per cent. that would not? The answer is that selective financial assistance will still be available in Northern Ireland, and can be given in all the cases to which SCG would be appropriate. Similarly, the Local Enterprise Development Unit has had a further 10 million allocated to it in the past 12 months, encouraging just the kind of smaller operation to which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred. Those are two of the forms in which assistance will still be available.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful for that information. I had half-expected the reply. Does the Minister not accept that the new system will be far more labour-intensive, in the sense outlined by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) the need to go into detail with individual firms far more than with the standard capital grant? Will that mean that the length of time before approval will be greatly extended, or will more people be employed to make more rapid decisions?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to say that an automatic grant is the simplest form of grant which no doubt is why it is popular with business people, who want to be certain that their applications will be accepted. I have taken special steps to ensure that there is speed in response to the applications, and I shall deal with that matter later.
I mentioned two ways in which grants will be available to those for whom standard capital grant will no longer be available. We have undertaken that no worthwhile project will fail for lack of support from the Industrial Development Board, which is an important commitment.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked for some idea of the way in which we propose to spend the money that will not be spent by way of standard capital grant. Standard capital grant is being phased out, but a number of applications will perhaps be bunched around the period ending 31 March 1988. At present, standard capital grant is available to companies that can show that they have incurred the expenditure before that date.
I am very proud of the schemes that have been introduced during the past 18 months, during which time I have been responsible for the Department of Economic Development for Northern Ireland. I have a list of 21 schemes that have been introduced over the past 18 months, and I shall deal with the larger of them in terms of financial commitment. There is a quality initiative scheme administered by the IDB and the LEDU—the research and development grant scheme—to which £5·6 is allocated. The local enterprise programme concentrates on smaller operations, in which the hon. Member for South Down showed special interest. It is intended to develop one, two or three-man businesses, and it will generate considerable business. About £1·6 million has been allocated to local enterprise programmes.
The Technology Board for Northern Ireland has been allocated £500,000 and it is trying to promote further technological advance. About £1·6 million has been allocated to the IDB's marketing scheme, and £3·6 million has been allocated to the Antrim technology park, which


is proving to be a centre of excellence for high-technology firms. Some £500,000 has been given to the pilot manpower training scheme.
We are allocating more funds to specialist schemes that promote management, marketing and awareness of exports. The phasing out of standard capital grant will not lead to a diminution in our commitment to the growth of industrial development in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked why we could not make the Coopers and Lybrand report available. The survey was carried out on a confidential basis. The 300 companies questioned appreciated that they were being asked questions on a confidential basis. If we wanted to publish the whole of the report it would be necessary to seek the permission of those companies first, because they gave information which they expected to be used solely for the purposes of Government research.
Further, it would be easy to identify a number of the companies from the results if they were published. It would not be right to publish without their authority or to seek their authority purely for the purpose of publishing the whole of the report. We have published a summary, which we hope will show the way in which the survey was considered by the Government, and it is intended to provide the basis on which our action was taken.

Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware that the companies that were questioned—the CBI has confirmed this—had no idea that the research was in respect of capital grants?

Mr. Viggers: I am not sure whether that shows that the survey was carried out well, or badly. If the people who were questioned were not aware of the purpose of the survey, it shows that it was done in a canny way, if I may import a word from another part of the United Kingdom. Quite often, the purpose of market research is not to allow the person being interviewed to know the purpose of the interview. If the person being interviewed knows the purpose of the interview, it sometimes influences his response. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss that matter further, I shall be happy to do so outside the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South made the point in correspondence that we should retain the standard capital grant where companies have proved their export potential. As selective financial assistance is already available, and as his proposal would require the Government, or one of their agencies, to inquire whether a company had been diligent and successful in pursuing exports, that would import selective financial assistance similar to the existing scheme. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would not add anything, because we already have the opportunity, through selective financial assistance, to do more through the medium of standard capital grant. Therefore, I can assure him that nothing is lost and that his proposal would not add anything for companies in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not know whether to be grateful to the Minister for that reply: I am sure that I am not. The Minister will agree that we are talking, not about particular firms, but about sectors of the economy in Northern Ireland that have shown that they are able to use the standard capital grant system and be involved in

import substitution or in stimulating exports. If the old system were to apply to industrial sectors, the criticisms that the Minister makes of my suggestion would not apply.

Mr. Viggers: I think that we are going wider than the hon. Gentleman wants. Standard capital grant is restricted to manufacturing, and the line between manufacturing and the service sector is increasingly blurred. Who is to say, for instance, that someone working on computer-aided design and manufacture is in manufacturing or in the service sector? There is much more freedom within the selective financial assistance system than within standard capital grant. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his proposal would add nothing to what is already available under selective financial assistance.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I am grateful to the Minister, who has shown great concern about unemployment and industry in Northern Ireland since he took over his job. As he knows, there is a need to attract more high-tech industry to the Province, and as he is also aware, the Irish Republic is doing its best worldwide to bring high-tech industries to the Republic. Can the Minister say whether this change will put Northern Ireland at a disadvantage in attracting foreign firms?

Mr. Viggers: The purpose of the change is to promote further investment in Northern Ireland and to assist the efforts of companies within Northern Ireland. We hope that it will be possible for further assistance to be made available for companies such as those within the North Down development organisation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which I have visited twice in the past four months. It will be of benefit to us all if we can support enterprise in this way.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked for trade union representation and contribution to discussions. There are two trade union members on the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland and trade unions also have their members on the Northern Ireland Economic Council. There are trade unionists on the Local Enterprise Development Unit. They make a welcome and significant contribution to the work of those bodies, and they well reflect the views of trade union members.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any diminution of our commitment to industrial development in Northern Ireland. I repeat that that is not our intention. We intend to strengthen the economy of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who is not in the Chamber at present, raised again the manner of dealing with Northern Ireland business by way of orders that cannot be amended in any way and which tend to be discussed in debates the latter part of the evening. The Government recognise that the way in which Northern Ireland business is discussed is by no means satisfactory.
We do not pretend that this method of legislation is perfect, and for that reason our existing procedures provide for extensive consultation in Northern Ireland, which took place in this case. We appreciate the difficulties posed by unamendable Orders in Council, but we believe that the problem is best addressed in the context of discussions about the future government of Northern Ireland, and we are always willing to talk about the issues to all interested parties and to consider constructive suggestions.
The hon. Member for South Down made the point that standard capital grant was the only distinctive advantage held in Northern Ireland and implied that phasing it out was a diminution in our commitment. I repeat that there is no question of our diminishing our commitment to economic development.
The hon. Gentleman also quoted responses from the CBI. I quote back to him a report from the press in Northern Ireland, where the director of the CBI was reported as saying that changes in the national level of regional development grant, which are similar to our abolition of standard capital grant, represented a bold shift in the way that the Department of Trade and Industry supports industry in Great Britain. In many ways the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Department of Economic Development are ahead of the game in the DTI. We certainly have a more generous support system.
I was asked by several hon. Gentlemen whether it would be possible to assure them that future applications for support would not be held up by red tape or bogged down in delay. The hon. Member for South Down mentioned periods of delay which he alleged were experienced by applicants to the IDB and the LEDU. I was concerned that that should not be the case, and I have personally reviewed with the IDB and the LEDU their procedures to ensure that they are as fast and as flexible as possible.
I am told, and we have checked, that the average time taken by the IDB to process an application from the time of first full application through to the time that the grant is awarded is an average of 16 to 17 weeks. It has a special, so-called green channel appraisal system which enables it to deal with matters much more rapidly. We are dealing with public money, and it is appropriate that there should be proper checks and balances in the application system.
The LEDU, with its business start-up scheme in enterprise grant cases, has an average application to completion time of three to four weeks. The possible delay in servicing the applications concerns the IDB and the LEDU, as well as the Government generally. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who perhaps has been told by the occasional disgruntled applicant of an exceptional delay, that I have personally investigated every case that has been put to me and I have not found any cases of unjustifiable delay.

Mr. McGrady: The figures that I quoted were not my own, but those published by the CBI.

Mr. Viggers: I should like to see those figures. The figures were put to me by the CBI in Northern Ireland in the presence of the IDB, and we discussed them. We have been through the figures in question and I was satisfied that the IDB was performing differently from the manner suggested by the CBI. If there were undue delay, I would be concerned. As I said, I have personally investigated every case that has been put to me and I have not found an example of unjustifiable delay.
The Industrial Development Board and the LEDU have recognised the need to focus management attention on total quality, and both bodies have introduced programmes in the past year directed towards that end. I have already referred to the IDB's marketing support assistance. The LEDU is in the process of simplifying and streamlining its grant for research and development, marketing, management development and quality development, and will shortly launch these in a revised form, better shaped to stimulate firms to undertake projects with real potential for future increased employment.
Similarly, in industrial development, the Department of Economic Development has successfully tested a unique and effective aid to business development in the form of its pilot manpower training scheme. I am currently examining whether this scheme should be operated on a permanent basis. I am particularly anxious that small companies should not be disadvantaged by the change from standard capital grant to selective assistance.
Following consultation with business interests, the LEDU has devised straightforward arrangements for the smallest firms to apply for assistance on small projects that will create employment or have significant wider economic benefits, and these arrangements will be in place early next month. I have also asked both the IDB and the LEDU, as I have mentioned, to ensure that their procedures and resources will enable them to respond speedily and effectively to any increased work load.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the commitment that Government have to industry, energy, trade and employment in Northern Ireland. I can give the figures to reveal the extent of the Government's commitment. Northern Ireland has 268 per cent. of the average United Kingdom identifiable expenditure per head, and it is entirely right that Northern Ireland should receive that benefit during these times. I am satisfied with the quality of the investment that is being made at the moment, and I am satisfied that unemployment is falling. I believe that the proposals will assist in improving the economy of Northern Ireland, and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft General Assistance Grants (Abolition) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Jack Thompson be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Hilary Armstrong be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at to-morrow's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Tribunals and Inquiries may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

PETITION

Rating Reform

11 pm

Mr. John Home Robertson: I come to the House to present a petition signed by 879 people in the burgh of Musselburgh, the "honest toun", calling for the repeal of the poll tax legislation in Scotland. The House should be familiar with the case against this grossly unfair and inefficient tax, and I have no doubt that people in Scotland will treat the latest publicly funded propaganda exercise by Scotland's minority Tory Administration with the contempt that it deserves. I join more than 2,800 of my constituents who have so far signed petitions calling upon the House to repeal this dangerous legislation before any more harm is done.
Before I lodge the petition, I should like to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, the Scottish Office is in the process of spending about £250,000 on distributing propaganda material supporting the poll tax legislation in Scotland, yet I have received a card from the Clerk of Public Petitions at the Journal Office saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland is refusing to respond to petitions lodged by my hon. Friends and myself against the poll tax legislation in Scotland. What can we do with a Department of State that refuses to respond to petitions lodged in the House? Is that not an abuse of the House and of the public petitions procedure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair has no responsibility for ministerial replies. However, I can call upon him to present his petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Derbyshire County Council

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The debate is intended to draw attention to the extraordinary spending levels of Derbyshire county council. The county council has already responded in its usual hysterical way in a press release issued today, in which it accuses me of hiding behind parliamentary privilege. I wonder how I can be accused of hiding behind parliamentary privilege before anyone knows what I am going to say. The county council's response is strange but we in Derbyshire have become accustomed to strange responses. If the county council thinks that that is how it will gag us so that we do not expose what we regard as some of the most serious abuses of local government expenditure, it is mistaken It will have exactly the opposite effect.
The last time that I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate, it was on the future of Ecclesbourne sixth form school. Again, the county council was trying to destroy an excellent school of proven worth for the sake of following Socialist dogma. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science refused the application and that the sixth form school has survived because of the efforts of a Conservative Government to ensure that good education is made available.
I believe in the role of local government, which has an important part to play in British democracy. Local government is there to provide services. The problem with so many Left-wing county councils is that they try to become not a provider of services but an alternative to the Government. We are not a federal but a unitary Parliament and power is devolved from the Government to local authorities.
The spending levels of Derbyshire county council have caused its ratepayers nothing but distress over a number of years. We are now left with the highest precept in England. It is a staggering 297·5p this year. That increase was announced last Friday.
The county council is saying that that is not its fault, but the fault of the Government. The Government's proposals towards the end of 1987 implied that if Derbyshire holds its current expenditure broadly constant in real terms, its grant will increase by £17 million—over 13 per cent.—to £149 million, the third highest increase of any shire county. That would be consistent with a very low increase in its precept—less than half of 1 per cent. That is on the assumption that Derbyshire will increase its total expenditure by 3·9 per cent. to £435 million, which will be over 5 per cent. more than—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the hon. Gentleman give the House the facts? The Tory Government have robbed Derbyshire county council of £107 million in the last seven years and £20 million in this financial year. They have cut the rate support grant from 61 to 46 per cent. That is why the ratepayers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have had to pay more money.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I shall deal with his important point. However, let me continue.
The total expenditure will have increased by 3·9 per cent. to £435 million, which will be over 5 per cent. more


than is needed to provide the standard level of local services—the grant-related expenditure assessment of £413 million. The GRE will increase by over 8 per cent. this year, reflecting the priority given by the Government to education and the police.
If Derbyshire county council was being treated unfairly by the Government, one would expect other county authorities to suffer in the same way. Therefore, I want to take a few minutes to compare Derbyshire with Staffordshire county council.
I had the privilege of serving on Staffordshire county council for some six years from 1981. The comparison between Staffordshire and Derbyshire is a good one. Staffordshire has a population of 1,021,000 and an area of 271,000 hectares. The population of Derbyshire is 916,000 and it has an area of 263,000 hectares. Both have a city within their county boundaries. Derbyshire has the city of Derby and Staffordshire has Stoke-on-Trent.
If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so interested in the subject, perhaps he should listen. Derbyshire county council's rate in 1981–82 was 111p, Staffordshire county council's rate in that year was 112·5p. Derbyshire county council's rate for 1988–89 is 297·5p and Staffordshire county council's rate for 1988–89 is only 215p. Derbyshire county council's rate has increased over that period by 168 per cent. while Staffordshire county council's rate increase has been 91 per cent. Inflation over that period has been 52 per cent.
If there is any logic in what the hon. Member for Bolsover said, one would think that those county authorities had been controlled by different parties, but both authorities are controlled and run by the Labour party. Is the hon. Member for Bolsover saying that somehow the Government have made specific legislation for Derbyshire county council? That is nonsense. The Government legislate for local government throughout the United Kingdom. They do not legislate only for Derbyshire county council. We need to get across to our constituents in Derbyshire the fact that the Government have treated county councils equally.
Why is it that we in Derbyshire have such a high level of rates? As we all know, education takes up the biggest percentage of the rates. As Derbyshire has a higher level of rates than Staffordshire, one would think that Derbyshire would be spending more than Staffordshire on education, but what are the facts? The latest figures available, the cash figures for 1985–86 from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, show that spending on a pupil in a primary school in Staffordshire is £815, and for a pupil in a secondary school it is £1,125. In Derbyshire, where the county council should be spending more, it is spending less—£780 on primary education and the same as Staffordshire on secondary education. However, the rates in Derbyshire are far higher.
Derbyshire county council, together with its usual propaganda, has tried to make the case that ratepayers in Derbyshire do not pay the highest rates. The latest leaflet it put out last week after the county rate meeting says that in Buckinghamshire people pay more. On properties with a rateable value of £150, with Buckinghamshire's county precept, a ratepayer would pay £341·55. In Derbyshire, on the rate precept for the coming year the cost would be £446·25. It is only Socialist logic that says people in Buckinghamshire are paying more rates than people in

Derbyshire. It is quite disgraceful that we have the highest shire precept county rate. There is no good reason for it. It is higher by a substantial margin.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have given way once already. This is only an Adjournment debate. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate to put the case for Derbyshire county council, which I am sure his constituents would love him to do, he is entitled to do so.
The sooner the present rating system is changed, the better. It cannot happen soon enough for me or for my constituents. The important factor in the new system is accountability. I believe that Derbyshire county council is the highest and the most reckless spending county council in England. It is falling in line with some of the loony London boroughs with which we have to put up.
I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to what I believe is a blatant abuse of ratepayers' money to further the political ends of an election candidate. I understand that it is possible, under the county council's rules, to hold surgeries and that they can be charged to the county council. The level of £250 a year is allowed for that. Mr. David Bookbinder seems to have held quite a few of those surgeries. I understand that he has held 12. It is disgraceful that only four of them were held in the county division that he represents. The others were held in the parliamentary constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) where Mr. Bookbinder happened to be the prospective Labour party parliamentary candidate. That is a blatant abuse of ratepayers' money to further the political ends of one man. That abuse should be investigated by the Audit Commission. That kind of abuse is absolutely disgraceful. Despite Mr. Bookbinder holding all those surgeries, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley achieved a most incredible election result. He secured a 9,500 majority in a seat which the Labour party expected to win. The House is better off with my hon. Friend's presence than it would have been with the presence of Mr. Bookbinder.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last week, we could go on for ever and a day talking about some of the mad things being done by Derbyshire county council. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will be brief.
I want to refer to a leaflet produced by the county council and given to schoolchildren to take home to their parents. I have received a number of letters about the leaflet. Far from the county council's propaganda reaching parents, it has had the opposite effect. To illustrate my point I will quote from some of the letters that I have received. For example:
I enclose a letter that my son aged 15 brought home from school yesterday. I am sure you will have read it like others and I would like to ask you the following questions: Are the county council within their rights to send political propaganda via pupil post in an unsealed manner?
Another letter that I have received states:
Frankly I was disgusted that my son aged 5 was used to further"—

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject of this Adjournment debate is the


Government's monitoring of Derbyshire county council's spending levels. We have heard nothing yet about the Government's monitoring of those levels.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the Adjournment debate is a very wide debate. I have heard nothing out of order so far.

Mr. McLoughlin: I can well understand the embarrassment that Labour Members must feel as they try to defend the indefensible. The fact that Labour Members have tried to score cheap points instead of answering the points that I have put before my hon. Friend the Minister shows that they have no idea what to do about Derbyshire county council.
I will continue to read from some of the letters that I have received from parents in response to the leaflet sent out by the county council:
Frankly I was disgusted that my son aged 5 was used to further the Socialist ends of the county council in bringing home this letter and leaflet both of which give a very biased view of the possible effects of the Government's proposed legislation.
The sooner the legislation comes into force the sooner we shall be able to control Derbyshire county council.
Another letter states:
Why was the letter delivered to me through my 7-year-old daughter bringing the letter and pamphlet home without the same even being put in an envelope? Was it intended that my daughter should read it? Was it intended as political indoctrination?
Yet another letter stated:
Our daughter returned from school today clutching among other circulars from her headmaster the enclosed piece of political propaganda. This method of delivery implies that the headmaster and school support this policy and it raises two important questions. Is it legal for the council to require a headmaster to distribute political propaganda to the school children in this way?
We find that unacceptable. Is ratepayers' money being spent on the printing and distribution of such propaganda when it should be spent on books providing educational facilities for students and pupils in Derbyshire, who have to go through the state school system and who are being failed by the county council, not by the Government? A number of councils with precepts far lower than that of Derbyshire have already been rate-capped. It is high time the Government stood by the people of Derbyshire and considered rate-capping the county council.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) have the agreement of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and the Minister to intervene?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): indicated assent.

Mr. Oppenheim: I welcome the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to the Opposition Front Bench—a most unusual position for him. I suggest that he does not get too comfortable there because he is unlikely to stay there for long. While we have the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport, I want to

say that when I recently turned out on the right wing for Amber Valley rugby club's third XV to play Bolsover rugby club, I was surprised to find that Bolsover thought it wise to send its first XV to play our third team. Imagine my disappointment not to find the hon. Member for Bolsover playing on the left wing against me. I f he had played, the game would have been replete with possibilities and opportunities.
I know that the leader and members of the Derbyshire county council feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and I have some sort of vendetta against the council, but I assure them that we have not. We believe that it is our duty to represent our constituents. I hope that the council leader will listen to what we say tonight, will carefully consider our arguments and will agree that his council may be wanting in some areas.
On many occasions, the leader of the county council has professed that he is a great friend of freedom of information. He spent a large sum of ratepayers' money fighting a case in the courts to establish whether the banned book "Spycatcher" could be stocked in county council libraries. So one would expect him to be more than ready to purvey information about his county council as freely as possible.
Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Last year, against the specific advice of investment experts, Derbyshire county council decided to invest £305,000 of county council pension fund money in a newspaper called News on Sunday, which was a cause célèebre among Left-wing councils and trade unions, which thought it would be a Left-Wing flagship newspaper.
Needless to say, the newspaper quickly ran into difficulties and was the subject of a rescue bid by a northwestern estate agent by the name of Owen Oyston, who apparently bought a large share of the News on Sunday company, diluting the stake of the original investors, which were largely county council pension funds. I understand that in the process, Mr. Oyston, who is obviously a bright and assiduous business man, paid himself a consultancy fee of £4,000 a week for running the paper. So much for Socialist brotherhood.
The injection of cash kept the News on Sunday going until shortly after the election, when it ran into more embarrassing trouble. It appeared that the company concerned would have to go into liquidation and that all the money that the various pension funds had invested would be lost. But—surprise, surprise—Derbyshire county council managed to sell its stake back to Mr. Oyston for £400,000. What it did not say was that it had agreed to invest a further £400,000 of pension fund money in another of Mr. Oyston's ventures, with the possibility of another £2 million of pension fund money being invested by the council in another of his ventures called "Telemags".
I have written to the leader of the county council on several occasions to ask whether the repayment or £400,000 to the county council pension fund by Mr. Oyston was in any way linked with the council's commitment to invest another £400,000 of the pension' fund in another of Mr. Oyston's ventures plus a further £2 million that it has agreed to consider investing. Despite those letters and several reminders, the county council leader has steadfastly refused to give the information. So much for the great friend of freedom of speech.
In many other areas we have found that the wasteful council has been most unwilling to give information. In council-run libraries in my constituency the only national newspapers that are stocked are The Guardian and the Daily Mirror. I have written to the county councillor responsible, councillor Lennox, on no fewer than six occasions asking why a wider range of newspapers is not stocked. After the sixth letter the councillor wrote back and said that he did not seem to have received the previous five letters. I know how gullible the Opposition are and they can believe that excuse if they like, but my credulity was stretched by that reply.
There are many examples of waste by the county council and all too often it falls back on the spurious claim that the Government have cut rate support grant. All the figures demonstrate that, since the Labour party came to power in Derbyshire in 1981, far from cutting that grant, the Government have increased it substantially in excess of the rate of inflation. Indeed, that county council has been treated far more generously than many southern Tory-controlled councils. The claim that the Government have cut the rate support grant is total nonsense.
In common with most of my constituents, I believe that the improvement and proper management of our education system is essential to our recovery as an industrial nation. I wish to highlight one of many possible examples of what I consider to be political interference and mismanagement of state education by the county council. Recently it decided to close down a school in the neighbouring town of Ilkeston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost). The council decided to use loopholes in the law to pack the shadow governing body of that school with as many of its supporters as possible. Four of the five parent governors from the previous board were appointed, but virtually all the remaining appointed governors were strong Labour party supporters. The county council was trying to pack that shadow governing body with as many of its political supporters as possible to ensure that its political will was imposed on that school against the obvious wishes of the parents and children concerned and against the best interests of the children and people of Derbyshire.
I have no vendetta against the county council. However, some of my constituents—retired miners—who live in small, terraced houses, ex-coal board houses and bungalows in areas such as Somercotes and Alfreton are paying between £500 and £700 in rates whereas in the next-door county of Staffordshire they would be paying between £300 and £400 only.
I appeal to the Derbyshire county councillors to be less profligate and less political in their spending and to consider, for once, the legitimate interests of the ratepayers and people whom they are meant to serve.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Before replying to the many interesting and important points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), I should like to tender the apologies of my ministerial colleagues who normally deal with local government finance matters for not being here this evening. Hon. Members will be aware that they are unavoidably detained

elsewhere with the members of Standing Committee E in considering the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill.
As the Leader of the House said last week, we have, sadly, reached the stage at which nothing done by Derbyshire county council causes much surprise, but what continues to grow unabated is our disappointment. Derbyshire is the sort of authority that would seek praise from its ratepayers for increasing its precept by a similar percentage to other authorities, but omit to point out—although its ratepayers probably need no reminding—that this was only because the county's precept was already the highest in the country.
Last week, and again this evening, attention has been drawn to what may be yet another example of this council abusing its publicity powers to peddle Socialist propaganda. It is wholly inappropriate to use public funds for such a purpose. It is even more disgraceful if the council has used schoolchildren to help distribute such material.
I am pleased to say that both Houses of Parliament have now approved measures in the Local Government Bill which, when enacted, will reinforce the statutory ban on party political propaganda at public expense. These measures will also ensure that local authorities must have regard to the practice which Parliament recommends in the field of publicity.
Returning to the main issue under consideration, under the rate support grant settlement for the coming year, which was debated and approved by the House before Christmas, the county council stood to receive about £17·5 million more grant than it does this year if it fixed its budget in line with our spending assumption. That spending assumption would have allowed the authority to keep its current expenditure roughly steady in real terms, and it made special allowance for the extra cost of teachers' pay arising from the pay agreement made last year.
The county was also fortunate in having an 8 per cent. increase in its spending needs assessment, arising largely from the priority that we gave through the settlement to extra spending on county level services such as the police and education. Hon. Members present who do not represent the Derbyshire area may be surprised at, and perhaps envious of, the fact that we calculated that the extra grant would have enabled the county to increase its precept by less than a penny.
However, my Department has just learnt that Derbyshire decided on Friday to increase its precept by 35·5p—or, as it might say, "only 13½ per cent."—and thereby retained the doubtful honour of having the highest county precept. In so doing, it has fixed a budget nearly £18 million above our spending assumption and thereby chosen to forgo nearly £7 million in block grant, adding £25 million in all to the amount financed from the rates.
I wonder how the county's publicity machine will decide to present such uncomfortable facts to local people this year. Even as the Minister with responsibility for sport, I should perhaps not risk the controversy that offering dietary advice can sometimes arouse, but I feel bound to say that a change to a hard fact diet in Derbyshire would do a lot to improve the health of local democracy.
There must be many people in Derbyshire who believe that the county has already gone too far and would like to see some direct action by the Government to redress the


balance. Many may think, as my hon. Friend suggested, that rate-capping would be the most obvious course. Although the county has the highest precept in the country—and certainly very much higher than Camden's—that on its own is not enough to allow such exceptional action.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.